Search

Importance: The prognosis of patients with adenocarcinoma of the esophagus and esophagogastric junction (AEG) is poor. From current evidence, it remains unclear to what extent preoperative chemoradiotherapy (CRT) or preoperative and/or perioperative chemotherapy achieve better outcomes than surgery alone., Objective: To assess the association of preoperative CRT and preoperative and/or perioperative chemotherapy in patients with AEG with overall survival and other outcomes., Data Sources: Literature search in PubMed, Cochrane Library, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, ClinicalTrials.gov, and International Clinical Trials Registry Platform was performed from inception to April 21, 2023., Study Selection: Two blinded reviewers screened for randomized clinical trials comparing preoperative CRT plus surgery with preoperative and/or perioperative chemotherapy plus surgery, 1 intervention with surgery alone, or all 3 treatments. Only data from participants with AEG were included from trials that encompassed mixed histology or gastric cancer. Among 2768 initially identified studies, 17 (0.6%) met the selection criteria., Data Extraction and Synthesis: The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) reporting guidelines were followed for extracting data and assessing data quality by 2 independent extractors. A bayesian network meta-analysis was conducted using the 2-stage approach., Main Outcomes and Measures: Overall and disease-free survival, postoperative morbidity, and mortality., Results: The analyses included 2549 patients (2206 [86.5%] male; mean [SD] age, 61.0 [9.4] years) from 17 trials (conducted from 1989-2016). Both preoperative CRT plus surgery (hazard ratio [HR], 0.75 [95% credible interval (CrI), 0.62-0.90]; 3-year difference, 105 deaths per 1000 patients) and preoperative and/or perioperative chemotherapy plus surgery (HR, 0.78 [95% CrI, 0.64-0.91]; 3-year difference, 90 deaths per 1000 patients) showed longer overall survival than surgery alone. Comparing the 2 modalities yielded similar overall survival (HR, 1.04 [95% CrI], 0.83-1.28]; 3-year difference, 15 deaths per 1000 patients fewer for CRT). Similarly, disease-free survival was longer for both modalities compared with surgery alone. Postoperative morbidity was more frequent after CRT plus surgery (odds ratio [OR], 2.94 [95% CrI, 1.01-8.59]) than surgery alone. Postoperative mortality was not significantly more frequent after CRT plus surgery than surgery alone (OR, 2.50 [95% CrI, 0.66-10.56]) or after chemotherapy plus surgery than CRT plus surgery (OR, 0.44 [95% CrI, 0.08-2.00])., Conclusions and Relevance: In this meta-analysis of patients with AEG, both preoperative CRT and preoperative and/or perioperative chemotherapy were associated with longer survival without relevant differences between the 2 modalities. Thus, either of the 2 treatments may be recommended to patients.

Background: Population-based patient reported outcome data in oesophageal cancer are rare. The main purpose of this study was to describe health-related quality of life (HRQOL) 1 year after the diagnosis of oesophageal cancer, comparing subgroups of curatively and palliatively managed patients., Methods: This is a nationwide population-based cohort study, based on the Swedish National Registry for Oesophageal and Gastric Cancer (NREV) with prospectively registered data, including HRQOL instruments from the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer including the core and disease specific questionnaires (EORTC QLQ-C30 and QLQ-OG25). Patients diagnosed with oesophageal cancer between 2009 and 2016 and with complete HRQOL data at 1 year follow-up were included. HRQOL of included patients was compared to a reference population matched by age and gender to to a previous cohort of unselected Swedish oesophageal cancer patients. Linear regression was performed to calculate mean scores with 95% confidence intervals (CI) and adjusted linear regression analysis was used to calculate mean score differences (MD) with 95% CI., Results: A total of 1156 patients were included. Functions and global health/quality of life were lower in both the curative and palliative cohorts compared to the reference population. Both curatively and palliatively managed patients reported a severe symptom burden compared to the reference population. Patients who underwent surgery reported more problems with diarrhoea compared to those treated with definitive chemoradiotherapy (dCRT) (MD -14; 95% CI - 20 to - 8). Dysphagia was more common in patiens treated with dCRT compared to surgically treated patients (MD 11; 95% CI 4 to 18). Those with palliative intent due to advanced tumour stage reported more problems with dysphagia compared to those with palliative intent due to frailty (MD -18; 95% CI - 33 to - 3)., Conclusions: One year after diagnosis both curative and palliative intent patients reported low function scores and severe symptoms. Dysphagia, choking, and other eating related problems were more pronounced in palliatively managed patients and in the curative intent patients treated with dCRT., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Background: Chemoradiotherapy is standard treatment for localized oesophageal cancer unsuitable for surgery. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy of cetuximab in combination with chemoradiotherapy., Methods: This non-randomised multicentre phase II trial recruited patients aged 18-75 with WHO performance status 0-2 having squamous cell carcinoma or adenocarcinoma in the oesophagus or gastro-oesophageal junction, T2-4, N0-3, M0 not suitable for surgery. Chemotherapy was three 21-day cycles of fluorouracil 750 mg/m2 D1-5 and oxaliplatin D1 (cycle 1:130mg/m 2, cycle 2-3:85 mg/m 2). Radiotherapy was 50Gy in 2Gy/fraction, 5 days a week, concurrent with cycle 2 and 3 and weekly cetuximab. The primary objective was loco-regional control at one year., Results: 52 patients were included. 51 were eligible for toxicity and survival analysis and 46 for recurrence analysis. Full radiotherapy dose was delivered to 80%, 75% received all three cycles of chemotherapy and 75% received four or more doses of cetuximab. The most common related grade III-IV adverse events were gastro-intestinal(16), hypersensitivity(6) and infection(5). There were two drug-related deaths. Within six months from the end of treatment, six patients died from complications from fistulas. The loco-regional control rate at one year was 47.3%(95%CI 30.9%-62.1%). Overall survival at three years was 29.1%(95% CI 17.4-41.9%)., Conclusions: Oxaliplatin and fluorouracil given concurrent with radiotherapy and cetuximab had an acceptable safety profile and showed a clinical response in patients with locoregionally advanced oesophageal cancer unsuitable for surgery. However, the primary end-point was not met, and the addition of cetuximab to definitive chemoradiotherapy cannot be recommended., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Dysphagia is the most significant symptom in patients with esophageal cancer. There are different therapeutic interventions designed to relieve dysphagia, but few studies have addressed the effects of neoadjuvant therapy. The aim of this study is to compare the effects on dysphagia of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (nCT) versus neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) and further to study the association between dysphagia response and histological response. Patient reported swallowing function was a secondary endpoint in the NeoRes trial, in which patients were randomized between neoadjuvant chemotherapy or neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. Patients completed dysphagia questionnaires before the start and after neoadjuvant therapy, using the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) esophageal cancer modules QLQ-OES24/OG25. Chirieac tumor regression grade (TRG) was used to assess the histological response. Out of 181 patients were randomized, of whom 87% completed the dysphagia questionnaires before and 73% after neoadjuvant treatment. Patient characteristics were similar between the treatment arms. Among patients reporting dysphagia at baseline, neoadjuvant therapy improved dysphagia in both arms. The mean dysphagia score after neoadjuvant treatment was significantly lower after nCT compared to after nCRT (P = 0.022). The reported dysphagia did not differ between those with a complete histological response (TRG 1) and those without any response at all (TRG 4) (P = 0. 583).

NeoRes I is a randomized phase II trial comparing neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy with neoadjuvant chemotherapy in the treatment of resectable cancer of the esophagus or gastroesophageal junction. Patients with biopsy-proven adenocarcinoma or squamous cell carcinoma, T1N1 or T2-3N0-1 and M0-M1a (AJCC 6th ed.), were randomized to receive three 3-weekly cycles of cisplatin 100 mg/m2 day 1 and fluorouracil 750 mg/m2/24 hours, days 1-5 with or without the addition of concurrent radiotherapy 40 Gy, 2 Gy/fraction, 5 days a week, followed by esophageal resection with two-field lymphadenectomy. Primary endpoint was complete histopathological response rate in the primary tumor. Survival and recurrence patterns were evaluated as secondary endpoints. Between 2006 and 2013, 181 patients were enrolled in Sweden and Norway. All three chemotherapy cycles were delivered to 73% of the patients allocated to chemoradiotherapy and to 86% of the patients allocated to chemotherapy. 87% of those allocated to chemoradiotherapy received full dose radiotherapy. 87% in the chemoradiotherapy group and 86% in the chemotherapy group underwent tumor resection. Initial results showed that patients allocated to chemoradiotherapy more often responded with complete histopathological response in the primary tumor (28% vs. 9%). Treatment-related complications were similar between the groups although postoperative complications were more severe in the chemoradiotherapy group. This article reports the long-term results. Five-year progression-free survival was 38.9% (95% CI 28.9%-48.8%) in the chemoradiotherapy group versus 33.0% (95% CI 23.6%-42.7%) in the chemotherapy group, P = 0.82. Five-year overall survival was 42.2% (95% CI 31.9%-52.1%) versus 39.6% (95% CI 29.5%-49.4%), P = 0.60. There were no differences in recurrence patterns between the treatment groups. This is to our knowledge that the largest completed randomized trial comparing neoadjuvant chemotherapy with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy followed by esophageal resection in patients with cancer in the esophagus or gastroesophageal junction. Despite a higher tumor tissue response in those who received neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, no survival advantages were seen. Consequently, the results do not support unselected addition of radiotherapy to neoadjuvant chemotherapy as a standard of care in patients with resectable esophageal cancer.

Background: Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy might improve oncological outcome compared with chemotherapy after surgery for oesophagus or gastrooesophageal junction cancer. However, radiotherapy may induce cardiovascular side-effects that could increase the risk of perioperative adverse effects and postoperative morbidity., Objectives: The aim of this study was to compare the perioperative haemodynamics in patients undergoing oesophagectomy following neoadjuvant chemotherapy or chemoradiotherapy for cancer., Design: A prospective single-centre cohort study within a randomised multi-centre trial., Setting: A Swedish University Hospital from January 2009 to March 2013., Patients: A total of 31 patients (chemotherapy 17, chemoradiotherapy 14) included in a multi-centre trial randomising chemotherapy vs. chemoradiotherapy and operated at Karolinska University Hospital, Huddinge., Interventions: Cisplatin and 5-fluorouracil, either with or without concurrent radiotherapy (40 Gy), were given prior to surgery. Cardiac function was assessed with LiDCOplus (LiDCO Ltd, London, United Kingdom), echocardiography, troponin T and N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide, before, during and after surgery., Main Outcome Measures: The primary outcome was the interaction effect of the neoadjuvant treatment on stroke volume index during the perioperative period. Secondary outcomes were the interaction effects of oxygen delivery index, cardiac index, echocardiography and biochemical markers., Results: The groups were matched regarding comorbidities, but patients in the chemoradiotherapy group were older (66 vs. 60 years P = 0.03). Haemodynamic values changed in a similar way in both groups during the study period. The chemoradiotherapy group had a lower cardiac index before surgery (2.9 vs. 3.4 l min m, P = 0.03). On the third postoperative day, both groups displayed a hyperdynamic state compared with baseline, with no increase in troponin T, and a similar increase in N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide., Conclusion: Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for oesophageal or gastrooesophageal junction cancer seems to induce only a marginal negative effect on cardiac function compared with neoadjuvant chemotherapy. This difference did not remain when patients' haemodynamics were challenged by surgery., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01362127.

Background: Neoadjuvant therapy for cancer of the esophagus or gastroesophageal (GE)-junction is well established. The pros and cons of chemoradiotherapy and chemotherapy are debated. Chemoradiotherapy might impair cardiac function eliciting postoperative morbidity. The aim of this pilot study was to describe acute changes in left ventricular function following chemoradiotherapy or chemotherapy., Methods: Patients with esophageal and (GE)-junction cancer enrolled at our center into a multicenter trial comparing neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and chemotherapy were eligible. Patients were randomized to receive cisplatin and 5-fluorouracil with or without the addition of 40 Gy radiotherapy prior to surgery. Left ventricular function was evaluated using echocardiography and plasma N-Terminal Pro-B-Type Natriuretic Peptide (NT-proBNP) before and after neoadjuvant treatment. The primary outcome measure was left ventricular global strain (GS). Clinical effects were assessed using repeated exercise tests. Linear mixed models were used to analyze the effects of treatment group, and the interaction between groups., Results: 40 patients participated (chemoradiotherapy, n=17; chemotherapy, n=23). In the chemoradiotherapy group there was no change in left ventricular global strain but mitral annular plane systolic excursion (MAPSE) of the ventricular septum, early diastolic filling velocity (E-velocity), and the ratio of early to late ventricular filling velocities (E/A ratio) decreased significantly (p=0.02, p=0.01, and p=0.03, respectively). No changes were observed in the chemotherapy group. There was a trend towards an interaction effect for MAPSE sept and E (p=0.09 and p=0.09). NT-proBNP increased following chemoradiotherapy (p=0.05) but not after chemotherapy (p>0.99), and there was a trend towards an interaction effect (p=0.07). Working capacity decreased following neoadjuvant treatment (chemoradiotherapy p = 0.001, chemotherapy p=0.03) and was more pronounced after chemoradiotherapy with a trend towards an interaction effect (p=0.10)., Conclusions: Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy but not chemotherapy before surgery for cancer of the esophagus or GE-junction seems to induce an acute negative effect on both systolic and diastolic left ventricular function. Future studies on neoadjuvant treatment for esophageal cancer are suggested to add measurements of cardiac function., Trial Registration: Clinical Trials.gov NCT01362127 .

Background: The long-term survival benefits of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) and chemoradiotherapy (NACR) for oesophageal carcinoma are well established. Both are burdened, however, by toxicity that could contribute to perioperative morbidity and mortality., Methods: MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library and Embase were searched to capture the incidence of any postoperative complications, cardiac complications, respiratory complications, anastomotic leakage, postoperative 30-day mortality, total postoperative mortality and treatment-related mortality in randomized clinical trials comparing NAC or NACR with surgery alone, or NAC versus NACR. Meta-analyses comparing NAC and NACR were conducted by using adjusted indirect comparison., Results: Twenty-three relevant studies were identified. Comparing NAC or NACR with surgery alone, there was no increase in morbidity or mortality attributable to neoadjuvant therapy. Subgroup analysis of NACR for squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) suggested an increased risk of total postoperative mortality and treatment-related mortality compared with surgery alone: risk ratio 1·95 (95 per cent confidence interval 1·06 to 3·60; P = 0·032) and 1·97 (1·07 to 3·64; P = 0·030) respectively. A combination of direct comparison and adjusted indirect comparison showed no difference between NACR and NAC regarding morbidity or mortality., Conclusion: Neither NAC nor NACR for oesophageal carcinoma increases the risk of postoperative morbidity or perioperative mortality compared with surgery alone. There was no clear difference between NAC and NACR. Care should be taken with NACR in oesophageal SCC, where an increased risk of postoperative mortality and treatment-related mortality was apparent., (© 2014 BJS Society Ltd. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Copyright of British Journal of Surgery is the property of Oxford University Press / USA and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Esophageal sarcomas are rare and evidence in literature is scarce making their management difficult. The objective is to report surgical and oncological outcomes of esophageal sarcoma in a large multicenter European cohort. This is a retrospective multicenter study including all patients who underwent en-bloc esophagectomy for esophageal sarcoma in seven European tertiary referral centers between 1987 and 2016. The main outcomes and measures are pathological results, early and long-term outcomes. Among 10,936 esophageal resections for cancer, 21 (0.2%) patients with esophageal sarcoma were identified. The majority of tumors was located in the middle (n=7) and distal (n = 9) third of the esophagus. Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy was performed in five patients. All the patients underwent en-bloc transthoracic esophagectomy (19 open, 2 minimally invasive). Postoperative mortality occurred in 1 patient (5%). One patient received adjuvant chemotherapy. Definitive pathological results were carcinosarcoma (n = 7), leiomyosarcoma (n = 5), and other types of sarcoma (n = 9). Microscopic R1 resection was present in one patient (5%) and seven patients (33%) had positive lymph nodes. Median follow-up was 16 (3-79) months in 20 of 21 patients (95%). One-, 3 and 5-year overall survival rates were 74%, 43%, and 35%, respectively. One-, 3 and 5-years disease-free survival rates were 58%, 40%, and 33%, respectively. Median overall survival was 6 months in N+ patients vs. 37 months for N0 patients (p = 0.06). At the end of the follow-up period, nine patients had died from cancer recurrences (43%), three patients died from other reasons (14%), one patient was still alive with recurrence (5%) and the seven remaining patients were free of disease (33%). Recurrence was local (n = 3), metastatic (n = 3), or both (n = 4). In conclusion, carcinosarcoma and leiomyosarcoma were the most common esophageal sarcoma histological subtypes. Lymph node involvement was seen in one third of cases. A transthoracic en-bloc esophagectomy with radical lymphadenectomy should be the best surgical option to achieve complete resection. Long-term survival remained poor with a high local and distant recurrence rate. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The therapeutic strategy to be recommended in case of recurrent or persistent squamous cell esophageal cancer after completed definitive chemoradiotherapy (dCRT) has to be documented. Salvage esophagectomy has traditionally been recognized as a viable option, but many clinicians oppose the use of surgery due to the associated excessive morbidity and mortality. 'Second-line' chemoradiotherapy (CRT) without surgery may offer a treatment alternative in these difficult and demanding clinical situations. Until now, no comprehensive attempt has been carried out to compare the respective therapeutic options. A systematic literature search was performed focusing on studies comparing survival and treatment-related mortality in patients submitted to salvage esophagectomy or second-line CRT for recurrent or persistent esophageal squamous cell carcinoma after dCRT. Hazard ratios and risk ratios were calculated to compare the effect of these therapeutic strategies on overall survival and treatment-related mortality, respectively. Four studies containing 219 patients, with persistent or recurrent esophageal squamous cell carcinoma after dCRT, were included in the meta-analysis. The analysis revealed an overall survival benefit following salvage esophagectomy with a pooled hazard ratio for death of 0.42 (95% confidence interval 0.21-0.86, P = 0.017) compared with second-line CRT. A treatment-related mortality of 10.3% was recorded in the 36 patients who were submitted to salvage esophagectomy, while it was impossible to perform a meta-analysis comparing treatment-related mortality between the groups. Salvage esophagectomy offers significant gain in long-term survival compared with second-line CRT, although the surgery is potentially at a price of a high treatment-related mortality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The optimal time interval from neoadjuvant therapy to surgery in the treatment of esophageal cancer is not known. The aim of this study was to investigate if a prolonged interval between completed neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and surgery was associated with improved histological response rates and survival in a population-based national register cohort. The population-based cohort study included patients treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and esophagectomy due to cancer in the esophagus or gastroesophageal junction. Patients were divided into two groups based on the median time from completed neoadjuvant treatment to surgery. The primary outcome was complete histological response. Secondary outcomes were lymph node tumor response, postoperative complications, R0 resection rate, 90-day mortality, and overall survival. In total, 643 patients were included, 344 (54%) patients underwent surgery within 49 days, and 299 (47%) after 50 days or longer. The groups were similar concerning baseline characteristics except for a higher clinical tumor stage (P  = 0.009) in the prolonged time to surgery group. There were no significant differences in complete histological response, R0 resection rate, postoperative complications, 90-day mortality, or overall survival. Adjusted odds ratio for ypT0 in the prolonged time to surgery group was 0.99 (95% confidence interval: 0.64–1.53). Complete histological response in the primary tumor (ypT0) was associated with significantly higher overall survival: adjusted hazard ratio: 0.55 (95% CI 0.41–0.76). If lymph node metastases were present in these patients, the survival was, however, significantly lower: adjusted hazard ratio for ypT0N1: 2.30 (95% CI 1.21–4.35). In this prospectively collected, nationwide cohort study of esophageal and junctional type 1 and 2 cancer patients, there were no associations between time to surgery and histological complete response, postoperative outcomes, or overall survival. The results suggest that it is safe for patients to postpone surgery at least 7 to 10 weeks after completed chemoradiotherapy, but no evidence was seen in favor of recommending a prolonged time to surgery after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for esophageal cancer. A definitive answer to this question requires a randomized controlled trial of standard vs. prolonged time to surgery. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

NeoRes I is a randomized phase II trial comparing neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy with neoadjuvant chemotherapy in the treatment of resectable cancer of the esophagus or gastroesophageal junction. Patients with biopsy-proven adenocarcinoma or squamous cell carcinoma, T1N1 or T2-3N0-1 and M0-M1a (AJCC 6th ed.), were randomized to receive three 3-weekly cycles of cisplatin 100 mg/m2 day 1 and fluorouracil 750 mg/m2/24 hours, days 1–5 with or without the addition of concurrent radiotherapy 40 Gy, 2 Gy/fraction, 5 days a week, followed by esophageal resection with two-field lymphadenectomy. Primary endpoint was complete histopathological response rate in the primary tumor. Survival and recurrence patterns were evaluated as secondary endpoints. Between 2006 and 2013, 181 patients were enrolled in Sweden and Norway. All three chemotherapy cycles were delivered to 73% of the patients allocated to chemoradiotherapy and to 86% of the patients allocated to chemotherapy. 87% of those allocated to chemoradiotherapy received full dose radiotherapy. 87% in the chemoradiotherapy group and 86% in the chemotherapy group underwent tumor resection. Initial results showed that patients allocated to chemoradiotherapy more often responded with complete histopathological response in the primary tumor (28% vs. 9%). Treatment-related complications were similar between the groups although postoperative complications were more severe in the chemoradiotherapy group. This article reports the long-term results. Five-year progression-free survival was 38.9% (95% CI 28.9%–48.8%) in the chemoradiotherapy group versus 33.0% (95% CI 23.6%–42.7%) in the chemotherapy group, P  = 0.82. Five-year overall survival was 42.2% (95% CI 31.9%–52.1%) versus 39.6% (95% CI 29.5%–49.4%), P  = 0.60. There were no differences in recurrence patterns between the treatment groups. This is to our knowledge that the largest completed randomized trial comparing neoadjuvant chemotherapy with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy followed by esophageal resection in patients with cancer in the esophagus or gastroesophageal junction. Despite a higher tumor tissue response in those who received neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, no survival advantages were seen. Consequently, the results do not support unselected addition of radiotherapy to neoadjuvant chemotherapy as a standard of care in patients with resectable esophageal cancer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Neoadjuvant therapy improves long-term survival after oesophagectomy, treating oesophageal cancer, but the evidence to date is insufficient to determine which of the two main neoadjuvant therapy types, chemo-therapy (nCT) or chemoradiotherapy (nCRT), is more beneficial. We aimed to compare the effects of nCT with those of nCRT. Patients and methods: This multicentre trial, which was conducted in Sweden and Norway, recruited 181 patients with carcinoma of the oesophagus or the gastro-oesophageal junction who were candidates for curative-intended treatment. The primary end point was histological complete response after neoadjuvant treatment, which has been shown to be correlated with increased long-term survival. Study participants were randomized to nCT or nCRT, followed by surgery with two-field lymphadenectomy. Three cycles of platin/5-fluorouracil were administered in both arms, whereas 40 Gy of concomitant radiotherapy was added in the nCRT arm. Results: The trial met the primary end point, histological complete response being achieved in 28% after nCRT versus 9% after nCT (P = 0.002). Lymph-node metastases were observed in 62% in the nCT group versus 35% in the nCRT group (P = 0.001). The R0 resection rate was 87% after nCRT and 74% after nCT (P = 0.04). There was no difference in overall survival between the treatment arms. Conclusion: The addition of radiotherapy to neoadjuvant chemotherapy results in higher histological complete response rate, higher R0 resection rate, and a lower frequency of lymph-node metastases, without significantly affecting survival. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]