
==== Front
BMC Cancer
BMC Cancer
BMC Cancer
1471-2407
BioMed Central London

12853
10.1186/s12885-024-12853-y
Research
Treatment strategies for elderly patients with locally advanced esophageal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Yao Jiacheng 1
Zhao Xinyu 1
Chen Jun 2
Liu Tingting 3
Song Yaowen sywlnsysy@163.com

1
Dang Jun dangjunsy@163.com

1
1 https://ror.org/04wjghj95 grid.412636.4 Department of Radiation Oncology, The First Hospital of China Medical University, Shenyang, China
2 Department of Radiation Oncology, Shenyang Tenth People’s Hospital, Shenyang, China
3 Department of Radiation Oncology, Anshan Cancer Hospital, Anshan, China
4 9 2024
4 9 2024
2024
24 110114 5 2024
26 8 2024
© The Author(s) 2024
2024
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.
Background

Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) followed by surgery remains a standard of care for resectable esophageal cancer (EC), and definitive chemoradiotherapy (dCRT) is an alternative for unresectable diseases. However, it is controversial for the use of the two aggressive regimens in elderly patients.

Methods

We systematically searched multiple databases for studies comparing overall survival (OS) and/or progression-free survival (PFS) between dCRT and surgery (nCRT + surgery or surgery alone) or between dCRT and radiotherapy (RT) alone in elderly patients (age ≥ 65 years) until March 28, 2024. Statistical analysis was performed using random-effects model.

Results

Fourty-five studies with 33,729 patients were included. dCRT significantly prolonged OS (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.64, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.58–0.70) and PFS (HR = 0.67, 95% CI: 0.60–0.76) compared to RT alone for unresectable EC, and resulted in a worse OS compared to surgery for resectable cases (HR = 1.34, 95% CI: 1.23–1.45). Similar results of OS were also observed when the multivariate-adjusted HRs were used as the measure of effect (dCRT vs. RT alone: HR = 0.65, 95% CI: 0.58–0.73; dCRT vs. surgery: HR = 1.49, 95% CI: 1.28–1.74). Subgroup analyses according to age group (≥ 70, ≥ 75, or ≥ 80 years), study design, study region, histological type, radiation field, chemotherapy regimen revealed comparable results.

Conclusions

nCRT + surgery is likely a preferred strategy for elderly patients with good physiological conditions; and dCRT is a better alternative for unresectable cases. Advanced age alone does not appear to be a key predictor for the tolerability of the two aggressive treatments.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12885-024-12853-y.

Keywords

Surgery
Chemoradiotherapy
Elderly
Esophageal cancer
Meta-analysis
issue-copyright-statement© BioMed Central Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2024
==== Body
pmcIntroduction

Esophageal cancer (EC) is the seventh most frequently diagnosed cancer and the sixth leading cause of cancer-related deaths in the world [1], and approximately 30% of all newly diagnosed patients are older than 70 years [2]. Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) followed by surgery remains a standard of care for resectable, locally advanced EC, and definitive chemoradiotherapy (dCRT) is the standard therapeutic modality for unresectable or medically inoperable cases [1]. However, either dCRT or surgery is associated with relatively high toxicity. Therefore, it is controversial whether the two aggressive strategies are suitable for elderly patients.

A series of studies [3–47] including several randomized controlled trials (RCTs) [17, 19, 20, 26] have assessed efficacy and/or safety of definitive dCRT vs. radiotherapy (RT) alone or dCRT vs. surgery in elderly patients with EC, while the results are conflicting. In fact, elderly patients are a heterogeneous group, with different definitions from age ≥ 65 to ≥ 80 years in individual studies. In addition, the physiological conditions among elderly patients (such as baseline comorbidity and performance status) are different, which may affect the tolerance to treatments. Thus, treatment selection for elderly patients should be based on individualized assessments.

In light of current issues, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis, aiming to explore the optimal treatment strategy for elderly patient with locally advanced EC.

Methods

Literature search

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 statement [48] was followed for this study (Supplementary material: Table S1). Two authors (JY and XZ) independently searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science for publications until March 28, 2024. Search terms mainly included: “esophageal neoplasms”, “esophageal cancer”, “esophageal carcinoma”, “esophagectomy”, “surgery”, “radiotherapy”, “chemoradiotherapy”, “aged”, “geriatric”, “elderly”, and “older”. The detailed strategies are presented in Supplementary material: Table S2.

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

The inclusion criteria were as follows: (1) studies assessing dCRT vs. RT alone or dCRT vs. surgery (nCRT + surgery or surgery alone) in elderly patients (age ≥ 65 years) with locally advanced EC; (2) reported at least overall survival (OS) or progression-free survival (PFS); and (3) published in English. Non-comparative studies, case reports, letters, reviews, and meta-analysis were excluded.

Data extraction

Two authors (JY and XZ) independently collected the following information from the included studies: (1) study characteristics including name of the first author, year of publication, study design, study region, sample size, and median follow-up time; (2) patient characteristics including median age, sex, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group [ECOG] score, histological type, and stage; (3) treatment characteristics including surgery method, RT technique and dose, radiation field, and chemotherapy (CT) regimen; and (4) data of OS, PFS, and grade ≥ 3 adverse events (AEs).

Quality assessment

The quality of each study was independently assessed by two authors (JY and XZ). Risk of bias of RCTs were assessed using Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool [49], and the quality of retrospective studies were assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) [50]. The quality of the evidences were evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) [51].

Statistical analysis

The outcomes of interest included OS, PFS, and grade ≥ 3 AEs. A random-effects model was used for statistical analysis, using the software Review Manager 5.4 (Cochrane Collaboration, Oxford, UK). Hazard ratios (HRs) or odds ratios (ORs) with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were used as summary statistics. When not directly described in the studies, HRs with 95% CIs were calculated according to Tierney’s method [52]. The heterogeneity was evaluated with I-square (I2) test. A random-effects model was used when I2 ≥ 50%, and a fixed-effects model was used when I2 < 50%. Univariate and multivariable meta-regression analysis were performed to search for the sources of heterogeneity. Subgroup analyses were performed according to multivariate-adjusted HRs, study design, study region, histological type, stage, radiation field, CT regimen, and age. The stability of the results were assessed by sensitivity analysis. Publication bias was evaluated using the funnel plot and the Egger’s linear regression test [53].

Results

Eligible studies

The initial search retrieved 6232 records. After screening abstract and/or full text, 3007 duplicates and 3180 articles which did not meet the inclusion criteria were excluded. Finally, 45 studies [3–47] with 33,729 patients were eligible. The study selection process are shown in Fig. 1. Among the 45 studies, 26 studies involving 9105 patients examined dCRT vs. RT alone [3–28], and 19 studies involving 24,624 patients examined dCRT vs. surgery (nCRT + surgery or surgery alone) [29–47]. Tumor stages were based on the criteria of the 6-8th edition of the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC). Regarding dCRT vs. RT alone, the majority of patients had esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) and received three-dimensional radiotherapy (3D-RT) or intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) technique with a total dose of 50–70 Gy. Concurrent chemoradiotherapy (cCRT) was the common regimen used in dCRT group. The detailed characteristics of studies are presented in Table 1.

Fig. 1 Literature search and selection. HR, hazard ratio; cCRT, concurrent chemoradiotherapy; sCRT, sequential chemoradiotherapy; nCRT, neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy; dCRT, definitive chemoradiotherapy; RT, radiotherapy

Table 1 Characteristics of included studies

First author/ year	Region	Study
design	Treatment (Sample size)	SCC (%)	age (median)	Male (%)	ECOG	Stage	Stage criteria	RT dose (Gy)	RT field	RT technique	Median follow-
up (m)	
dCRT vs. RT	
Zhang/2014 [3]	China	retrospective	CCRT/RT(73/55)	100	≥ 65(72)	70	0–2	1–4	AJCC-6	60/1.8-2.0	IFI	3D/IMRT	18	
Li/2015 [4]	China	retrospective	CCRT/RT(56/60)	100	≥ 70(76)	72	0–2	1–4	AJCC-6	60/1.8-2.0	ENI	3D/IMRT	17	
Zhao/2017 [5]	China	retrospective	CCRT/RT(52/70)	100	>75(78)	71	0–2	2–3	AJCC-7	54–66/1.8-2.0	IFI	3D	40	
Zhao/2017 [6]	China	retrospective	CCRT/RT(86/98)	100	≥ 70(76)	64	0–3	1–3	AJCC-7	61.6/NR	Mixed	IMRT/VMAT	15.5	
Chen/2018 [7]	China	retrospective	CCRT/RT(49/41)	100	≥ 65(71)	58	0–2	2–3	AJCC-7	56-59.4/1.8-2.0	IFI	3D	NR	
Huang/2019 [8]	China	retrospective	CCRT/RT(153/118)	100	≥ 65(72)	72	0–2	1–4	AJCC-6	58.4/NR	NR	2D/3D/IMRT	NR	
Suzuki/2019 [9]	Japan	retrospective	CCRT/RT(38/12)	100	≥ 75(NR)	82	0–2	1–4	AJCC-7	60/1.8-2.0	Mixed	3D	21	
Jingu/2019 [10]	Japan	retrospective	CCRT/RT(51/51)	96	≥ 80(83)	78	0–2	1–4	AJCC-6	60/2.0	Mixed	3D	NR	
Chen/2020 [11]	China	retrospective	CCRT/RT(133/133)	100	>70(74)	NR	0–3	1–4	AJCC-7	61/1.8–2.2	ENI	3D/IMRT	21.7	
Jingu/2020 [12]	Japan	retrospective	CCRT/RT(196/162)	96	≥ 80(NR)	85	NR	1–4	AJCC-7	NR	NR	NR	NR	
Xia/2021 [13]	USA	retrospective	CRT/RT(1510/1510)	46	>65(75)	71	NR	1–4	AJCC-6	NR	NR	NR	NR	
Derby/2021 [14]	UK	retrospective	CCRT/RT(62/21)	100	>65(74)	47	0–2	1–3	AJCC-7	50–55/2.0-2.75	NR	IMRT/VMAT	NR	
Wu/2021 [15]	China	retrospective	CRT/RT(317/264)	100	≥ 65(74)	64	0–2	2–4	AJCC-8	50–70/1.8-2.0	IFI	IMRT	23.2	
Li/2021 [16]	China	retrospective	CCRT/RT(45/45)	100	≥ 70(NR)	NR	NR	3–4	AJCC-6	60(40–70)/2.0	ENI	IMRT/VMAT	47.9	
Ji/2021 [17]	China	phase 3	CCRT/RT(149/149)	99	≥ 70(77)	60	0–1	2–4	AJCC-6	54–60/1.8-2.0	Mixed	IMRT	33.9	
Wang/2021 [18]	China	retrospective	CCRT/RT(149/157)	100	≥ 70(NR)	NR	NR	1–4	AJCC-8	50–70/2.0-2.3	NR	3D/IMRT	NR	
Liu/2022 [19]	China	phase 2	CCRT/RT(78/79)	100	>70(77)	61	0–2	2–4	AJCC-6	50.4–59.4/1.8	IFI	3D/IMRT	38	
Liu/2022 [20]	China	prospective	CCRT/RT(17/17)	100	≥ 70(76)	85	NR	2–3	NR	50.4–60/1.8-2.0	IFI	IMRT	24.5	
Yan/2022 [21]	China	retrospective	CCRT/RT(93/99)	100	≥ 65(73)	58	0–2	2–3	AJCC-6	50.4–66/1.8-2.0	IFI	IMRT	21.3	
Liu/2022 [22]	China	retrospective	CCRT/RT(32/29)	100	≥ 70(76)	85	0–2	2–3	AJCC-7	60/2.0	NR	3D	NR	
Watanabe/2022 [23]	Japan	retrospective	CCRT/RT(15/25)	100	≥ 75(80)	75	0–3	3–4	AJCC-8	50.4–63/1.8	ENI	3D	NR	
Jingu/2022 [24]	USA	retrospective	CRT/RT(714/714)	44	≥ 80(85)	65	NR	1–4	AJCC-6	NR	NR	NR	57	
Saito/2023 [25]	Japan	retrospective	CCRT/RT(35/19)	100	≥ 65(72)	86	0–1	1b-3	AJCC-7	NR	NR	NR	61.2	
Wang/2023 [26]	China	phase 3	CCRT/RT(184/146)	100	≥ 70(76)	70	0–1	2–4	AJCC-6	60/1.8	ENI	IMRT/VMAT	44	
Qiu/2023 [27]	China	retrospective	CRT/RT(299/161)	100	≥ 65(NR)	66	NR	2-4a	AJCC-8	50–70/1.8-2.0	NR	3D/IMRT	24.7	
Huang/2023 [28]	China	retrospective	CCRT/RT(103/63)	100	≥ 65(NR)	71	0–2	1–4	AJCC-6	NR	NR	NR	NR	
dCRT vs. surgery	
Grace/2009 [29]	USA	retrospective	CRT/nCRT + S(1015/196)	52	≥ 65(76)	70	NR	1–3	NR	NR	NR	NR	9.6	
Julian/2019 [30]	USA	retrospective	CRT/S(389/341)	42	≥ 65(NR)	71	NR	1–2	AJCC	NR	NR	NR	NR	
Jing/2016 [31]	China	retrospective	CRT/S(100/88)	100	≥ 70(74)	64	91	1–3	AJCC-7	50.4–66/1.8-2.0	NR	3D/IMRT	28.5	
Vlacich/2017 [32]	USA	retrospective	CCRT/nCRT + S(955/955)	NR	≥ 70(77)	NR	NR	2–3	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR	
			CCRT/S(697/697)	NR	≥ 70(77)	NR	NR	2–3	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR	
Amy/2017 [33]	USA	retrospective	CCRT/S(206/94)	22	≥ 80(84)	66	NR	1	AJCC-6/7	NR	NR	NR	13.9	
Koëter/2018 [34]	Netherlands	retrospective	CRT/nCRT + S(405/309)	36	≥ 75(NR)	NR	NR	2-4a	AJCC-6/7	NR	NR	NR	NR	
Verma/2019 [35]	USA	retrospective	CRT/nCRT + S(488/488)	NR	>75(NR)	NR	NR	2–3	AJCC-6/7	NR	NR	NR	NR	
			CRT/S(457/457)	NR	>75(NR)	NR	NR	2–3	AJCC-6/7	NR	NR	NR	NR	
Faiz/2019 [36]	Netherlands	retrospective	CRT/nCRT + S(78)	0	≥ 75(NR)	NR	NR	2–3	AJCC-6/7	NR	NR	NR	NR	
			CRT/nCRT + S(33)	100	≥ 75(NR)	NR	NR	2–3	AJCC-6/7	NR	NR	NR	NR	
Rahimy/2020 [37]	USA	retrospective	CRT/nCRT + S(68/21)	40	≥ 75(80)	78	NR	1–4	AJCC-8	≥ 45	NR	3D/IMRT	16	
Hao/2021 [38]	USA	retrospective	CRT/CRT + S(1595/1592)	NR	≥ 75(NR)	NR	NR	2–3	AJCC-6	NR	NR	NR	NR	
Kato/2021 [39]	Japan	prospective	CCRT/CRT + S(83/78)	100	≥ 65(NR)	NR	0–1	1	AJCC-7	60/2.0	NR	NR	NR	
Gaber/2022 [40]	USA	retrospective	CCRT/nCRT + S(1240/1240)	0	≥ 65(72)	88	NR	1–3	AJCC-7	NR	NR	NR	NR	
			CCRT/nCRT + S(661/661)	100	≥ 65(72)	55	NR	1–3	AJCC-7	NR	NR	NR	NR	
Jensen/2022 [41]	USA	retrospective	CRT/nCRT + S(1899/1674)	0	≥ 70(NR)	NR	NR	1–4	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR	
			CRT/nCRT + S(1026/310)	100	≥ 70(NR)	NR	NR	1–4	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR	
Yang/2022 [42]	USA	retrospective	CRT/CRT + S(1510/524)	56	≥ 70(NR)	74	NR	2–3	AJCC-7	NR	NR	NR	NR	
			CRT/S(1510/194)	56	≥ 70(NR)	74	NR	2–3	AJCC-7	NR	NR	NR	NR	
Motoyama/2022 [43]	Japan	retrospective	CRT/CRT + S or S (720/683)	95	≥ 75(77)	NR	NR	2–3	AJCC-6	NR	NR	NR	NR	
Sawada/2022 [44]	Japan	retrospective	CCRT/S(11/21)	100	≥ 75(78)	80	0–1	1	AJCC-7	50–60	NR	3D/IMRT	72	
Shimonosono/2022 [45]	Japan	retrospective	CRT/S(37/23)	NR	≥ 80(82)	83	0–3	1–4	AJCC-8	50.4	NR	NR	NR	
Bostel/2023 [46]	Germany	retrospective	CRT/nCRT + S(133/42)	100	≥ 65(73)	74	0–2	1–4	AJCC-6/8	NR	NR	NR	NR	
Ahmed/2023 [47]	Canada	retrospective	CRT/nCRT + S (12/16)	35	≥ 80(83)	67	NR	2–3	AJCC-8	41.4–50.4/1.8	NR	NR	NR	
SCC, squamous cell carcinoma; ECOG, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group; m, month; dCRT, definitive chemoradiotherapy; CCRT, concurrent chemoradiotherapy; nCRT, neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy; S, surgery; NR, not reported; IFI, involved-field irradiation; ENI, elective nodal irradiation; 2D, two-dimensional; 3D, three-dimensional; IMRT, intensity modulated radiotherapy

OS and PFS for dCRT vs. RT

Compared to RT alone, dCRT significantly improved OS (HR = 0.64, 95% CI: 0.58–0.70, I2 = 59%) (Fig. 2) and PFS (HR = 0.67, 95% CI: 0.60–0.76, I2 = 41%) (Supplementary material: Figure S1).

Fig. 2 Forest plot of HRs comparing OS between dCRT and RT. OS, overall survival; dCRT, definitive chemoradiotherapy; RT, radiotherapy; HR, hazard ratio; CI, confidence interval; Zhaoa, Qian Zhao; Zhaob, Lina Zhao; Liua, Yanxiao Liu; Liub, Li-Hua Liu; Liuc, Junqing Liu

Considering the possibility of patient selection bias which might affect the results, we further compared the two treatments using adjusted HRs as the measure of effect. There were 15 and 11 studies reported multivariate-adjusted HRs for OS and PFS, respectively. Similar results were observed when these adjusted HRs were used as the measure of effect (OS: HR = 0.65, 95% CI: 0.58–0.73, I2 = 47%; PFS: HR = 0.69, 95% CI: 0.60–0.78, I2 = 37%) (Supplementary material: Figure S2 and S3).

In subgroup analyses, significantly longer OS with dCRT was observed in each subgroup, including Asia (HR = 0.65, 95% CI: 0.58–0.73, I2 = 55%), non-Asia (HR = 0.58, 95% CI: 0.53–0.62, I2 = 31%), prospective studies (HR = 0.69, 95% CI: 0.58–0.83, I2 = 0%), retrospective studies (HR = 0.63, 95% CI: 0.57–0.70, I2 = 64%), involved-field irradiation (IFI) (HR = 0.58, 95% CI: 0.44–0.76, I2 = 61%), elective nodal irradiation (ENI) (HR = 0.74, 95% CI: 0.63–0.87, I2 = 0%), dCRT using S-1 regimen (HR = 0.69, 95% CI: 0.58–0.83, I2 = 0%), dCRT using other CT regimens (HR = 0.63, 95% CI: 0.57–0.70, I2 = 64%), stage 2–3 disease (HR = 0.66, 95% CI: 0.54–0.81, I2 = 60%), ESCC (HR = 0.64, 95% CI: 0.58–0.72, I2 = 57%), age ≥ 70 years (HR = 0.62, 95% CI: 0.55–0.70, I2 = 53%), age ≥ 75 years (HR = 0.60, 95% CI: 0.53–0.67, I2 = 29%), and age ≥ 80 years (HR = 0.55, 95% CI: 0.50–0.59, I2 = 0%) (Fig. 3). dCRT also significantly prolonged PFS in all subgroups, except subgroup of ENI (Supplementary material: Figure S4).

Fig. 3 Subgroup analyses for OS in dCRT vs. RT group. OS, overall survival; dCRT, definitive chemoradiotherapy; RT, radiotherapy; CT, chemotherapy; IFI, involved-field irradiation; ENI, elective nodal irradiation; SCC, squamous cell carcinoma; HR, hazard ratio; CI, confidence interval

OS for dCRT vs. surgery

Compared to surgery, dCRT resulted in a significantly worse OS (HR = 1.34, 95% CI: 1.23–1.45, I2 = 76%) (Fig. 4). Similar results were also observed when the multivariate-adjusted HRs were used as the measure of effect (HR = 1.49, 95% CI: 1.28–1.74, I2 = 65%) (Supplementary material: Figure S5). PFS was not assessed because most of studies did not reported the data.

Fig. 4 Forest plot of HRs comparing OS between dCRT and surgery. OS, overall survival; dCRT, definitive chemoradiotherapy; HR, hazard ratio; CI, confidence interval; ADC, adenocarcinoma; SCC, squamous cell carcinoma; nCRT, neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy; S, surgery

In subgroup analyses, significantly decreased OS with dCRT was observed in the majority of subgroups, including Asia (HR = 1.21, 95% CI: 1.02–1.44, I2 = 68%), non-Asia (HR = 1.36, 95% CI: 1.23–1.50, I2 = 80%), stage 2–3 disease (HR = 1.25, 95% CI: 1.13–1.37, I2 = 75%), ESCC (HR = 1.32, 95% CI: 1.15–1.52, I2 = 45%), esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) (HR = 1.56, 95% CI: 1.24–1.97, I2 = 91%), nCRT + surgery (HR = 1.37, 95% CI: 1.25–1.50, I2 = 72%), age ≥ 70 years (HR = 1.35, 95% CI: 1.23–1.48, I2 = 73%), and age ≥ 75 years (HR = 1.33, 95% CI: 1.19–1.49, I2 = 54%), but not in subgroups of stage 1 disease (HR = 1.17, 95% CI: 0.88–1.56, I2 = 0%) and age ≥ 80 years (HR = 1.08, 95% CI: 0.86–1.36, I2 = 25%) (Fig. 5); dCRT was associated with a trend of worse OS compared to surgery alone (HR = 1.22, 95% CI: 0.97–1.54, I2 = 84%) (Fig. 5).

Fig. 5 Subgroup analyses for OS in dCRT vs. surgery group. OS, overall survival; dCRT, definitive chemoradiotherapy; nCRT, neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy; S, surgery; SCC, squamous cell carcinoma; ADC, adenocarcinoma; HR, hazard ratio; CI, confidence interval

Grade ≥ 3 AEs

Twelve studies assessing dCRT vs. RT alone [3–5, 7, 8, 10, 15, 17, 19, 20, 23, 26] reported data of the overall or individual grade ≥ 3 AEs. Compared to RT alone, dCRT was associated with a significantly higher risk of the overall AEs (OR = 2.55, 95% CI: 1.60–4.06, I2 = 34%), leukocytopenia (OR = 2.42, 95% CI: 1.51–3.90, I2 = 0%), thrombopenia (OR = 3.93, 95% CI: 1.75–8.81, I2 = 0%), and nausea/vomiting (OR = 3.89, 95% CI: 2.12–7.13, I2 = 4%); risk of pneumonitis (OR = 1.04, 95% CI: 0.68–1.59, I2 = 0%), esophagitis (OR = 1.30, 95% CI: 0.93–1.82, I2 = 19%), and anemia (OR = 1.50, 95% CI: 0.67–3.36, I2 = 0%) were comparable between the two groups (Fig. 6).

Fig. 6 Grade ≥ 3 AEs for dCRT vs. RT. AEs, adverse events; dCRT, definitive chemoradiotherapy; RT, radiotherapy

We further compared individual grade ≥ 3 AEs between dCRT using S-1 regimen [17, 19, 20, 26] and other CT regimens [3–5, 7, 8, 10, 15, 23]. The pooled rate of pneumonitis (3.5 vs. 3.0%) was similar between the two regimens, while the incidence of esophagitis (6.0% vs. 9.2%), leukocytopenia (7.5% vs. 11.6%), anemia (0.9% vs. 3.5%), thrombopenia (2.4% vs. 5.5%), and nausea/vomiting (2.0% vs. 14.4%) were relatively low in S-1 group compared to that in the other regimens group (Supplementary material: Figure S6).

The GRADE assessment

Results of the GRADE assessment can be seen in Supplementary material: Table S3. Most of the evidences had low GRADE ratings, except the evidences for subgroups of prospective studies and dCRT using S-1 regimen which had moderate GRADE ratings.

Meta-regression analysis

Multivariable meta-regression analysis showed that study region, study design, stage, histological type, radiation field, and chemotherapy regimen were not significantly associated with the heterogeneity for either OS or PFS (P > 0.05 for each comparison) (Supplementary material: Table S4).

Sensitivity analysis

When omitting one study at a time, the results for OS and PFS were not significantly altered (Supplementary material: Figure S7).

Assessment of studies and publication bias

There were 4 RCTs [17, 19, 20, 26] which were rated with low or unclear risk of bias (Supplementary material: Figure S8). All observational studies had a score of ≥ 6 (Supplementary material: Table S5). The Egger’s test results indicated no publication bias (P > 0.05 for each result). The funnel plots are shown in Supplementary material: Figure S9.

The forest plots for the results of subgroup analyses

The forest plots for the results of subgroup analyses in dCRT vs. RT alone group and dCRT vs. surgery group are presented in Supplementary material: Figures S10–S33.

Discussion

This is a comprehensive meta-analysis to assess the optimal treatment strategy for elderly patients with locally advanced EC. It showed that dCRT significantly improved OS and PFS compared to RT alone in patients with unresectable EC. As for resectable cases, dCRT resulted in worse OS and PFS compared to surgery. Comparable results were observed when the multivariate-adjusted HRs were used as the measure of effect. Regarding safety of dCRT vs. RT alone, dCRT was associated with higher risk of the overall grade ≥ 3 AEs, and grade ≥ 3 thrombopenia and nausea/vomiting, without increased risk of grade ≥ 3 pneumonitis and esophagitis.

It should be noted that the definitions for elderly patients in individual studies were inconsistent (age ≥ 65, ≥70, ≥ 75, or ≥ 80 years). In theory, comorbidity should increase and physiological reserves should decrease with age, leading to reduced tolerability to the aggressive treatments with age. In a large retrospective study assessing safety of esophagectomy in elderly patients, operative mortality substantially increased with age (8.8% for aged 65–69, 13.4% for aged 70–79, and 19.9% for age ≥ 80) [54]. In our meta-analysis, dCRT significantly prolonged OS compared to RT alone in each age group (age ≥ 70, ≥75, or ≥ 80 years); and surgery was associated with a better OS in age ≥ 70 and ≥ 75 years groups compared to dCRT. These results suggest that surgery or dCRT can provide survival benefits in selected elderly patients, and advanced age alone is not a key factor associated with the benefits. Nevertheless, the tolerability should be carefully evaluated before selecting these aggressive treatments in elderly patients.

The common CT regimens used with dCRT in individual studies were platinum-based double-agent regimens. It has been reported that intravenous CT has high risk of treatment-related AEs in elder patients [55]. As an orally administered drug, S-1 is generally considered to have less toxicities. However, there is still lack of studies comparing dCRT using platinum-based regimens with single-S-1 regimen in elderly patients with EC. In our meta-analysis, both the two regimens with dCRT significantly improved OS and PFS compared to RT alone. In addition, we found that single-S-1 was associated with low grade ≥ 3 AEs compared to platinum-based regimen. Thus, dCRT using single-S-1 is likely a reasonable alternative selection in elderly patients with EC.

Regarding radiation field, current NCCN clinical practice guidelines recommends using ENI in patients with locally advanced EC receiving cCRT [1]. However, given the relatively high toxicity, whether ENI is necessary in elder patients needs further investigation. In a retrospective study of 137 elderly patients with EC treated with cCRT, IFI was associated with reduced toxicities without decreased OS compared to ENI [56]. In our meta-analysis, either dCRT using ENI or IFI gained better OS compared to RT alone, which supported the use of IFI in elderly patients. In addition, results from a retrospective study in EC [57] showed that cCRT using IMRT had lower cardiac mortality and overall mortality compared to 3D-CRT in patients with age > 65 years. More prospective trials are needed to confirm the superiority of IMRT.

The CROSS [58] and NEOCRTEC5010 [59] trials have demonstrated that nCRT followed by surgery improves survival compared with surgery alone in patients with resectable, locally advanced EC. However, the NEOCRTEC5010 trial excluded patients with age ˃70 years, and the median age was 60 years (range, 18–75 years) in the CROSS trial. There are still lack of RCTs examining nCRT plus surgery vs. surgery alone specifically in elderly patients. In our study, surgery alone also gained a trend of improved OS compared to dCRT. This finding suggests that surgery alone can be used as an alternative regimen when there is a concern for the tolerability of the trimodality therapy in elderly patients. In addition, esophagectomy has been a standard of care for stage 1 (cT1-2N0) EC, and dCRT is only recommended for patients who are medically inoperable or decline surgery [1]. However, whether surgery can be avoid in elderly patients with stage 1 disease remain uncertain. Several retrospective studies [33, 44, 45] have demonstrated a comparable efficacy between esophagectomy and dCRT in patients with stage 1 and age ≥ 75 years. In our meta-analysis, OS was similar between surgery and dCRT in subgroup of stage 1 disease. Nevertheless, this finding needs to be validated in large RCTs.

Several studies reported that histological type was associated with the efficacy of nCRT. Results from two population-based studies showed that nCRT followed by surgery achieved longer OS than dCRT in elderly patients (≥ 75 years) with EAC but not in those with ESCC [34, 36]. The authors explained that different tumor aggressiveness and carcinogenesis might be one of the reasons for the difference in survival benefits with nCRT between patients with EAC and ESCC [36]. However, there are also studies demonstrating a superior OS of nCRT + surgery vs. dCRT in elderly patients with ESCC [31, 40, 46]. In our meta-analysis, significantly improved OS with nCRT was observed both for patients with EAC and ESCC. Based on current evidences, it is difficult to conclude the less efficacy of nCRT in elderly patients with ESCC.

Recently, a series of phase 1 or 2 trials have examined the role of nCRT or nCT combined with immune checkpoint inhibitor (nICRT or nICT) in resectable EC. A meta-analysis including 27 trials with 809 patients showed that both nICRT and nICT achieved promising pathologic complete response rates with acceptable tolerability [60]. However, most of the trials excluded patients with age > 70 years. Further large trials are needed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the immunotherapy in elderly patients with locally advanced EC.

There are several limitations in this study. First, due to retrospective nature of the included studies, there is likely patient selection bias between dCRT and RT alone groups or between dCRT and surgery groups. For example, patients receiving surgery might have better physical condition than those receiving non-surgery treatment. However, we found the consistent results when the multivariate-adjusted HRs instead of crude HRs were used as the measure of effect, which would be helpful to increase statistical power of our analyses. Second, several included studies were with relatively small sample size, which might affect the overall results. However, in sensitivity analysis, the OS and PFS results were not significantly altered when these studies were removed one by one, suggesting the small influence of them. In addition, high heterogeneity was observed, especially in group of dCRT vs. surgery. Although meta-regression analyses were performed, no significant heterogeneity source could be identified. Third, surgical method and surgery related toxicity could not be assessed in this meta-analysis because most of the studies did not report the related data. Fourth, the majority of patients in dCRT vs. RT alone group had ESCC, and therefore, the findings in this group might not be generalizable to EAC. Finally, some HRs were calculated using the Kaplan Meier curve, which might have error compared to the direct calculation using the raw data.

Conclusions

nCRT followed by surgery appears to be a preferred strategy for elderly patients with good physiological conditions; and dCRT is a better alternative for unresectable cases. Advanced age alone is not likely a key predictor for the tolerability of the two aggressive treatments.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Material 1

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Author contributions

J.D. and Y.S. contributed to conception and design of the study, and reviewed and revised the article. J.Y. and X.Z. performed the literature search and data extraction. T.L., J.Y., and J.C. performed statistical analysis and prepared Figs. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6; Table 1. J.Y. and X.Z. drafted the article. All authors read and approved the final version.

Funding

None.

Data availability

Data is provided within the manuscript or supplementary information files.

Declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Abbreviations

nCRT neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy

EC Esophageal cancer

dCRT definitive chemoradiotherapy

OS Overall survival

PFS Progression-free survival

RT Radiotherapy

HR Hazard ratios

CI Confidence intervals

RCTs Randomized controlled trials

PRISMA Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis

ECOG Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group

CT Chemotherapy

AEs Adverse events

NOS Newcastle-Ottawa Scale

GRADE Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation

AJCC American Joint Committee on Cancer

ESCC Esophageal squamous cell carcinoma

3D-RT Three-dimensional radiotherapy

IMRT Intensity modulated radiotherapy

cCRT concurrent chemoradiotherapy

IFI Involved-field irradiation

ENI Elective nodal irradiation

EAC Esophageal adenocarcinoma

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Jiacheng Yao and Xinyu Zhao contributed equally to this work.
==== Refs
References

1. National Comprehensive Cancer Network. NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology for Esophageal and Esophagogastric Junction Cancers. Version 3.2023. (2023). http://www.nccn.org/guidelines
2. 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 systematic analysis for the global burden of Disease Study 2017 Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol 2020 5 6 582 97 10.1016/S2468-1253(20)30007-8 32246941
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 systematic analysis for the global burden of Disease Study 2017. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2020;5(6):582–97.32246941 10.1016/S2468-1253(20)30007-8
3. Zhang P Xi M Zhao L Shen JX Li QQ He LR Is there a benefit in receiving concurrent chemoradiotherapy for elderly patients with inoperable thoracic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma? PLoS ONE 2014 9 8 e105270 10.1371/journal.pone.0105270 25133495
Zhang P, Xi M, Zhao L, Shen JX, Li QQ, He LR, et al. Is there a benefit in receiving concurrent chemoradiotherapy for elderly patients with inoperable thoracic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma? PLoS ONE. 2014;9(8):e105270.25133495 10.1371/journal.pone.0105270
4. Li X Zhao LJ Liu NB Zhang WC Pang QS Wang P Feasibility and efficacy of concurrent chemoradiotherapy in elderly patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: a respective study of 116 cases from a single institution Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 2015 16 4 1463 9 10.7314/APJCP.2015.16.4.1463 25743816
Li X, Zhao LJ, Liu NB, Zhang WC, Pang QS, Wang P, et al. Feasibility and efficacy of concurrent chemoradiotherapy in elderly patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: a respective study of 116 cases from a single institution. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2015;16(4):1463–9.25743816 10.7314/APJCP.2015.16.4.1463
5. Zhao Q Hu G Xiao W Chen Y Shen M Tang Q Comparison of definitive chemoradiotherapy and radiotherapy alone in patients older than 75 years with locally advanced esophageal carcinoma: a retrospective cohort study Med (Baltim) 2017 96 35 e7920 10.1097/MD.0000000000007920
Zhao Q, Hu G, Xiao W, Chen Y, Shen M, Tang Q, et al. Comparison of definitive chemoradiotherapy and radiotherapy alone in patients older than 75 years with locally advanced esophageal carcinoma: a retrospective cohort study. Med (Baltim). 2017;96(35):e7920.10.1097/MD.0000000000007920
6. Zhao L Zhou Y Pan H Yin Y Chai G Mu Y Radiotherapy alone or concurrent chemoradiation for Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma in Elderly patients J Cancer 2017 8 16 3242 50 10.7150/jca.20835 29158796
Zhao L, Zhou Y, Pan H, Yin Y, Chai G, Mu Y, et al. Radiotherapy alone or concurrent chemoradiation for Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma in Elderly patients. J Cancer. 2017;8(16):3242–50.29158796 10.7150/jca.20835
7. Chen F Luo H Xing L Liang N Xie J Zhang J Feasibility and efficiency of concurrent chemoradiotherapy with capecitabine and cisplatin versus radiotherapy alone for elderly patients with locally advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: experience of two centers Thorac Cancer 2018 9 1 59 65 10.1111/1759-7714.12536 29024498
Chen F, Luo H, Xing L, Liang N, Xie J, Zhang J. Feasibility and efficiency of concurrent chemoradiotherapy with capecitabine and cisplatin versus radiotherapy alone for elderly patients with locally advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: experience of two centers. Thorac Cancer. 2018;9(1):59–65.29024498 10.1111/1759-7714.12536
8. Huang C Zhu Y Li Q Zhang W Liu H Zhang W Feasibility and efficiency of concurrent chemoradiotherapy with a single agent or double agents vs radiotherapy alone for elderly patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: experience of two centers Cancer Med 2019 8 1 28 39 10.1002/cam4.1788 30600600
Huang C, Zhu Y, Li Q, Zhang W, Liu H, Zhang W, et al. Feasibility and efficiency of concurrent chemoradiotherapy with a single agent or double agents vs radiotherapy alone for elderly patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: experience of two centers. Cancer Med. 2019;8(1):28–39.30600600 10.1002/cam4.1788
9. Suzuki G Yamazaki H Aibe N Masui K Kimoto T Shimizu D Definitive Radiotherapy for older patients aged ≥ 75 years with localized esophageal Cancer Vivo 2019 33 3 925 32 10.21873/invivo.11560
Suzuki G, Yamazaki H, Aibe N, Masui K, Kimoto T, Shimizu D, et al. Definitive Radiotherapy for older patients aged ≥ 75 years with localized esophageal Cancer. Vivo. 2019;33(3):925–32.10.21873/invivo.11560
10. Jingu K Takahashi N Murakami Y Ishikawa K Itasaka S Takahashi T Is concurrent Chemotherapy with Radiotherapy for Esophageal Cancer Beneficial in patients aged 80 years or older? Anticancer Res 2019 39 8 4279 83 10.21873/anticanres.13592 31366518
Jingu K, Takahashi N, Murakami Y, Ishikawa K, Itasaka S, Takahashi T, et al. Is concurrent Chemotherapy with Radiotherapy for Esophageal Cancer Beneficial in patients aged 80 years or older? Anticancer Res. 2019;39(8):4279–83.31366518 10.21873/anticanres.13592
11. Chen M Liu X Han C Wang X Zhao Y Pang Q Does chemoradiotherapy benefit elderly patients with esophageal squamous cell cancer? A propensity-score matched analysis on multicenter data (3JECROG R-03A) BMC Cancer 2020 20 1 36 10.1186/s12885-019-6461-z 31941487
Chen M, Liu X, Han C, Wang X, Zhao Y, Pang Q, et al. Does chemoradiotherapy benefit elderly patients with esophageal squamous cell cancer? A propensity-score matched analysis on multicenter data (3JECROG R-03A). BMC Cancer. 2020;20(1):36.31941487 10.1186/s12885-019-6461-z
12. Jingu K Numasaki H Toh Y Nemoto K Uno T Doki Y Chemoradiotherapy and radiotherapy alone in patients with esophageal cancer aged 80 years or older based on the Comprehensive Registry of Esophageal Cancer in Japan Esophagus 2020 17 3 223 9 10.1007/s10388-020-00725-w 32088786
Jingu K, Numasaki H, Toh Y, Nemoto K, Uno T, Doki Y, et al. Chemoradiotherapy and radiotherapy alone in patients with esophageal cancer aged 80 years or older based on the Comprehensive Registry of Esophageal Cancer in Japan. Esophagus. 2020;17(3):223–9.32088786 10.1007/s10388-020-00725-w
13. Xia X Gao Q Ge X Liu Z Di X Sun X Chemoradiotherapy is Superior to Radiotherapy alone in Esophageal Cancer patients older Than 65 years: a propensity score-matched analysis of the SEER database Front Oncol 2021 11 736448 10.3389/fonc.2021.736448 34557416
Xia X, Gao Q, Ge X, Liu Z, Di X, Sun X, et al. Chemoradiotherapy is Superior to Radiotherapy alone in Esophageal Cancer patients older Than 65 years: a propensity score-matched analysis of the SEER database. Front Oncol. 2021;11:736448.34557416 10.3389/fonc.2021.736448
14. Derby S Forshaw M Lowrie C Grose D Marashi H McLoone P Single modality radical radiotherapy is an acceptable alternative for the older patient with squamous cell carcinoma of the oesophagus BMJ Open Gastroenterol 2021 8 1 e000492 10.1136/bmjgast-2020-000492 33504498
Derby S, Forshaw M, Lowrie C, Grose D, Marashi H, McLoone P, et al. Single modality radical radiotherapy is an acceptable alternative for the older patient with squamous cell carcinoma of the oesophagus. BMJ Open Gastroenterol. 2021;8(1):e000492.33504498 10.1136/bmjgast-2020-000492
15. Wu H Yu Y Zheng Q Liu T Wu Y Wang Z Benefit of chemotherapy based on platinum with definitive radiotherapy in older patients with locally advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma Radiat Oncol 2021 16 1 207 10.1186/s13014-021-01931-1 34717670
Wu H, Yu Y, Zheng Q, Liu T, Wu Y, Wang Z, et al. Benefit of chemotherapy based on platinum with definitive radiotherapy in older patients with locally advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. Radiat Oncol. 2021;16(1):207.34717670 10.1186/s13014-021-01931-1
16. Li C Tan L Liu X Wang X Zhou Z Chen D Concurrent chemoradiotherapy versus radiotherapy alone for patients with locally advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma in the era of intensity modulated radiotherapy: a propensity score-matched analysis Thorac Cancer 2021 12 12 1831 40 10.1111/1759-7714.13971 33949784
Li C, Tan L, Liu X, Wang X, Zhou Z, Chen D, et al. Concurrent chemoradiotherapy versus radiotherapy alone for patients with locally advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma in the era of intensity modulated radiotherapy: a propensity score-matched analysis. Thorac Cancer. 2021;12(12):1831–40.33949784 10.1111/1759-7714.13971
17. Ji Y Du X Zhu W Yang Y Ma J Zhang L Efficacy of concurrent Chemoradiotherapy with S-1 vs Radiotherapy alone for older patients with esophageal Cancer: a Multicenter Randomized Phase 3 clinical trial JAMA Oncol 2021 7 10 1459 66 10.1001/jamaoncol.2021.2705 34351356
Ji Y, Du X, Zhu W, Yang Y, Ma J, Zhang L, et al. Efficacy of concurrent Chemoradiotherapy with S-1 vs Radiotherapy alone for older patients with esophageal Cancer: a Multicenter Randomized Phase 3 clinical trial. JAMA Oncol. 2021;7(10):1459–66.34351356 10.1001/jamaoncol.2021.2705
18. Wang L Wang X Ren X Han C Xiao Z Zhu S Qiao X Age plays an important role in the decision of definitive concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC): a propensity-score matched analysis of multicenter data (3JECROG R-02A) Transl Cancer Res 2021 10 6 2932 43 10.21037/tcr-21-505 35116602
Wang L, Wang X, Ren X, Han C, Xiao Z, Zhu S, Qiao X, et al. Age plays an important role in the decision of definitive concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC): a propensity-score matched analysis of multicenter data (3JECROG R-02A). Transl Cancer Res. 2021;10(6):2932–43.35116602 10.21037/tcr-21-505
19. Liu Y Zheng Z Li M Zhang Y Zhao F Gong H Comparison of concurrent chemoradiotherapy with radiotherapy alone for locally advanced esophageal squamous cell cancer in elderly patients: a randomized, multicenter, phase II clinical trial Int J Cancer 2022 151 4 607 15 10.1002/ijc.34030 35419831
Liu Y, Zheng Z, Li M, Zhang Y, Zhao F, Gong H, et al. Comparison of concurrent chemoradiotherapy with radiotherapy alone for locally advanced esophageal squamous cell cancer in elderly patients: a randomized, multicenter, phase II clinical trial. Int J Cancer. 2022;151(4):607–15.35419831 10.1002/ijc.34030
20. Liu LH Yan MH Di YP Fu ZG Zhang XD Li HQ Comparison of involved-field intensity-modulated radiotherapy combined with S-1 vs radiotherapy alone for elderly patients with esophageal cancer World J Clin Cases 2022 10 21 7365 75 10.12998/wjcc.v10.i21.7365 36157997
Liu LH, Yan MH, Di YP, Fu ZG, Zhang XD, Li HQ. Comparison of involved-field intensity-modulated radiotherapy combined with S-1 vs radiotherapy alone for elderly patients with esophageal cancer. World J Clin Cases. 2022;10(21):7365–75.36157997 10.12998/wjcc.v10.i21.7365
21. Yan K Wei W Shen W Du X Zhu S Zhao H Combining the systemic inflammation response index and prognostic nutritional index to predict the prognosis of locally advanced elderly esophageal squamous cell carcinoma patients undergoing definitive radiotherapy J Gastrointest Oncol 2022 13 1 13 25 10.21037/jgo-21-784 35284132
Yan K, Wei W, Shen W, Du X, Zhu S, Zhao H, et al. Combining the systemic inflammation response index and prognostic nutritional index to predict the prognosis of locally advanced elderly esophageal squamous cell carcinoma patients undergoing definitive radiotherapy. J Gastrointest Oncol. 2022;13(1):13–25.35284132 10.21037/jgo-21-784
22. Liu J Li Y Chen Y Jiang X Yu H Yan S Long-term treatment outcomes of the elder patients with locally advanced thoracic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma with definitive chemoradiotherapy or Radiotherapy Contrast Media Mol Imaging 2022 2022 3678441 10.1155/2022/3678441 35924070
Liu J, Li Y, Chen Y, Jiang X, Yu H, Yan S. Long-term treatment outcomes of the elder patients with locally advanced thoracic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma with definitive chemoradiotherapy or Radiotherapy. Contrast Media Mol Imaging. 2022;2022:3678441.35924070 10.1155/2022/3678441
23. Watanabe S Ogino I Kunisaki C Hata M Sequential chemotherapy after definitive radiotherapy in markedly elderly patients with advanced esophageal cancer Indian J Cancer 2022 59 2 244 50 10.4103/ijc.IJC_768_19 33402604
Watanabe S, Ogino I, Kunisaki C, Hata M. Sequential chemotherapy after definitive radiotherapy in markedly elderly patients with advanced esophageal cancer. Indian J Cancer. 2022;59(2):244–50.33402604 10.4103/ijc.IJC_768_19
24. Jingu K Takahashi N Umezawa R Yamamoto T Takeda K Suzuki Y The benefit of concurrent chemotherapy with radiotherapy for esophageal cancer is limited in Asian patients aged 80 years or older: a SEER database analysis Esophagus 2022 19 4 653 9 10.1007/s10388-022-00938-1 35779138
Jingu K, Takahashi N, Umezawa R, Yamamoto T, Takeda K, Suzuki Y, et al. The benefit of concurrent chemotherapy with radiotherapy for esophageal cancer is limited in Asian patients aged 80 years or older: a SEER database analysis. Esophagus. 2022;19(4):653–9.35779138 10.1007/s10388-022-00938-1
25. Saito Y Hamamoto Y Hirata K Yamasaki M Watanabe M Abe T Real-world management and outcomes of older patients with locally advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: a multicenter retrospective study BMC Cancer 2023 23 1 283 10.1186/s12885-023-10710-y 36978040
Saito Y, Hamamoto Y, Hirata K, Yamasaki M, Watanabe M, Abe T, et al. Real-world management and outcomes of older patients with locally advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: a multicenter retrospective study. BMC Cancer. 2023;23(1):283.36978040 10.1186/s12885-023-10710-y
26. Wang X Han W Zhang W Wang X Ge X Lin Y Effectiveness of S-1-Based chemoradiotherapy in patients 70 years and older with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: a Randomized Clinical Trial JAMA Netw Open 2023 6 5 e2312625 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.12625 37195667
Wang X, Han W, Zhang W, Wang X, Ge X, Lin Y, et al. Effectiveness of S-1-Based chemoradiotherapy in patients 70 years and older with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: a Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Netw Open. 2023;6(5):e2312625.37195667 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.12625
27. Qiu J Yang J Yu Y Wang Z Lin H Ke D Prognostic value of pre-therapeutic nutritional risk factors in elderly patients with locally advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma receiving definitive chemoradiotherapy or radiotherapy BMC Cancer 2023 23 1 597 10.1186/s12885-023-11044-5 37380982
Qiu J, Yang J, Yu Y, Wang Z, Lin H, Ke D, et al. Prognostic value of pre-therapeutic nutritional risk factors in elderly patients with locally advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma receiving definitive chemoradiotherapy or radiotherapy. BMC Cancer. 2023;23(1):597.37380982 10.1186/s12885-023-11044-5
28. Huang C Wang M Chen L Wang H Huang D Shi J The pretherapeutic systemic inflammation score is a prognostic predictor for elderly patients with oesophageal cancer: a case control study BMC Cancer 2023 23 1 505 10.1186/s12885-023-10982-4 37270496
Huang C, Wang M, Chen L, Wang H, Huang D, Shi J, et al. The pretherapeutic systemic inflammation score is a prognostic predictor for elderly patients with oesophageal cancer: a case control study. BMC Cancer. 2023;23(1):505.37270496 10.1186/s12885-023-10982-4
29. Smith GL Smith BD Buchholz TA Liao Z Jeter M Swisher SG Patterns of care and locoregional treatment outcomes in older esophageal cancer patients: the SEER-Medicare Cohort Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2009 74 2 482 9 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2008.08.046 19289262
Smith GL, Smith BD, Buchholz TA, Liao Z, Jeter M, Swisher SG, et al. Patterns of care and locoregional treatment outcomes in older esophageal cancer patients: the SEER-Medicare Cohort. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2009;74(2):482–9.19289262 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2008.08.046
30. Abrams JA Buono DL Strauss J McBride RB Hershman DL Neugut AI Esophagectomy compared with chemoradiation for early stage esophageal cancer in the elderly Cancer 2009 115 21 4924 33 10.1002/cncr.24536 19637343
Abrams JA, Buono DL, Strauss J, McBride RB, Hershman DL, Neugut AI. Esophagectomy compared with chemoradiation for early stage esophageal cancer in the elderly. Cancer. 2009;115(21):4924–33.19637343 10.1002/cncr.24536
31. Jing W Guo H Kong L Zhang Y Wang H An C Clinical outcomes of elderly patients (≥ 70 years) with resectable esophageal squamous cell carcinoma who underwent esophagectomy or chemoradiotherapy: a retrospective analysis from a single cancer institute Med (Baltim) 2016 95 50 e5630 10.1097/MD.0000000000005630
Jing W, Guo H, Kong L, Zhang Y, Wang H, An C, et al. Clinical outcomes of elderly patients (≥ 70 years) with resectable esophageal squamous cell carcinoma who underwent esophagectomy or chemoradiotherapy: a retrospective analysis from a single cancer institute. Med (Baltim). 2016;95(50):e5630.10.1097/MD.0000000000005630
32. Vlacich G Samson PP Perkins SM Roach MC Parikh PJ Bradley JD Treatment utilization and outcomes in elderly patients with locally advanced esophageal carcinoma: a review of the National Cancer Database Cancer Med 2017 6 12 2886 96 10.1002/cam4.1250 29139215
Vlacich G, Samson PP, Perkins SM, Roach MC, Parikh PJ, Bradley JD, et al. Treatment utilization and outcomes in elderly patients with locally advanced esophageal carcinoma: a review of the National Cancer Database. Cancer Med. 2017;6(12):2886–96.29139215 10.1002/cam4.1250
33. Moreno AC Verma V Hofstetter WL Lin SH Patterns of Care and Treatment outcomes of Elderly patients with Stage I esophageal Cancer: analysis of the National Cancer Data Base J Thorac Oncol 2017 12 7 1152 60 10.1016/j.jtho.2017.04.004 28455149
Moreno AC, Verma V, Hofstetter WL, Lin SH. Patterns of Care and Treatment outcomes of Elderly patients with Stage I esophageal Cancer: analysis of the National Cancer Data Base. J Thorac Oncol. 2017;12(7):1152–60.28455149 10.1016/j.jtho.2017.04.004
34. Koëter M van Putten M Verhoeven RHA Lemmens VEPP Nieuwenhuijzen GAP Definitive chemoradiation or surgery in elderly patients with potentially curable esophageal cancer in the Netherlands: a nationwide population-based study on patterns of care and survival Acta Oncol 2018 57 9 1192 200 10.1080/0284186X.2018.1450521 29528262
Koëter M, van Putten M, Verhoeven RHA, Lemmens VEPP, Nieuwenhuijzen GAP. Definitive chemoradiation or surgery in elderly patients with potentially curable esophageal cancer in the Netherlands: a nationwide population-based study on patterns of care and survival. Acta Oncol. 2018;57(9):1192–200.29528262 10.1080/0284186X.2018.1450521
35. Verma V Haque W Zheng D Osayande F Lin C Patterns of Care and outcomes of Elderly Esophageal Cancer patients not meeting age-based Criteria of the CROSS Trial Am J Clin Oncol 2019 42 1 67 74 10.1097/COC.0000000000000481 30216194
Verma V, Haque W, Zheng D, Osayande F, Lin C. Patterns of Care and outcomes of Elderly Esophageal Cancer patients not meeting age-based Criteria of the CROSS Trial. Am J Clin Oncol. 2019;42(1):67–74.30216194 10.1097/COC.0000000000000481
36. Faiz Z van Putten M Verhoeven RHA van Sandick JW Nieuwenhuijzen GAP van der Sangen MJC Impact of Age and Comorbidity on Choice and Outcome of two different treatment options for patients with potentially curable esophageal Cancer Ann Surg Oncol 2019 26 4 986 95 10.1245/s10434-019-07181-6 30719634
Faiz Z, van Putten M, Verhoeven RHA, van Sandick JW, Nieuwenhuijzen GAP, van der Sangen MJC, et al. Impact of Age and Comorbidity on Choice and Outcome of two different treatment options for patients with potentially curable esophageal Cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2019;26(4):986–95.30719634 10.1245/s10434-019-07181-6
37. Rahimy E Koong A Toesca D White MN Panjwani N Fisher G Outcomes and tolerability of definitive and preoperative chemoradiation in Elderly patients with esophageal Cancer: a Retrospective Institutional Review Adv Radiat Oncol 2020 5 6 1188 96 10.1016/j.adro.2020.05.001 33305080
Rahimy E, Koong A, Toesca D, White MN, Panjwani N, Fisher G, et al. Outcomes and tolerability of definitive and preoperative chemoradiation in Elderly patients with esophageal Cancer: a Retrospective Institutional Review. Adv Radiat Oncol. 2020;5(6):1188–96.33305080 10.1016/j.adro.2020.05.001
38. Lv H Chao C Wang B Wang Z Qian Y Zhang X The effect of surgery plus chemoradiotherapy on survival of elderly patients with stage II-III esophageal cancer: a SEER-based demographic analysis Cancer Med 2021 10 23 8483 96 10.1002/cam4.4352 34800005
Lv H, Chao C, Wang B, Wang Z, Qian Y, Zhang X. The effect of surgery plus chemoradiotherapy on survival of elderly patients with stage II-III esophageal cancer: a SEER-based demographic analysis. Cancer Med. 2021;10(23):8483–96.34800005 10.1002/cam4.4352
39. Kato K Ito Y Nozaki I Daiko H Kojima T Yano M Parallel-group controlled trial of surgery Versus Chemoradiotherapy in patients with stage I esophageal squamous cell carcinoma Gastroenterology 2021 161 6 1878 e18862 10.1053/j.gastro.2021.08.007 34389340
Kato K, Ito Y, Nozaki I, Daiko H, Kojima T, Yano M, et al. Parallel-group controlled trial of surgery Versus Chemoradiotherapy in patients with stage I esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. Gastroenterology. 2021;161(6):1878–e18862.34389340 10.1053/j.gastro.2021.08.007
40. Gaber CE Shaheen NJ Edwards JK Sandler RS Nichols HB Sanoff HK Trimodality therapy vs definitive chemoradiation in older adults with locally Advanced Esophageal Cancer JNCI Cancer Spectr 2022 6 6 pkac069 10.1093/jncics/pkac069 36205723
Gaber CE, Shaheen NJ, Edwards JK, Sandler RS, Nichols HB, Sanoff HK, et al. Trimodality therapy vs definitive chemoradiation in older adults with locally Advanced Esophageal Cancer. JNCI Cancer Spectr. 2022;6(6):pkac069.36205723 10.1093/jncics/pkac069
41. Jensen GL Hammonds KP Haque W Neoadjuvant versus definitive chemoradiation in locally advanced esophageal cancer for patients of advanced age or significant comorbidities Dis Esophagus 2023 36 2 doac050 10.1093/dote/doac050 35901451
Jensen GL, Hammonds KP, Haque W. Neoadjuvant versus definitive chemoradiation in locally advanced esophageal cancer for patients of advanced age or significant comorbidities. Dis Esophagus. 2023;36(2):doac050.35901451 10.1093/dote/doac050
42. Yang Y Chen M Xie J Ji Y Sheng L Qiu G Treatment patterns and outcomes of Elderly patients with potentially curable esophageal Cancer Front Oncol 2022 12 778898 10.3389/fonc.2022.778898 35237508
Yang Y, Chen M, Xie J, Ji Y, Sheng L, Qiu G, et al. Treatment patterns and outcomes of Elderly patients with potentially curable esophageal Cancer. Front Oncol. 2022;12:778898.35237508 10.3389/fonc.2022.778898
43. Motoyama S Maeda E Iijima K Sato Y Koizumi S Wakita A Does Esophagectomy provide a survival advantage to patients aged 80 years or older? Analyzing 5066 patients in the National Database of Hospital-based Cancer registries in Japan Ann Surg 2022 276 1 e16 23 10.1097/SLA.0000000000004437 33630469
Motoyama S, Maeda E, Iijima K, Sato Y, Koizumi S, Wakita A, et al. Does Esophagectomy provide a survival advantage to patients aged 80 years or older? Analyzing 5066 patients in the National Database of Hospital-based Cancer registries in Japan. Ann Surg. 2022;276(1):e16–23.33630469 10.1097/SLA.0000000000004437
44. Sawada K Kotani D Yukami H Mishima S Fujiwara H Kadota T Definitive chemoradiotherapy has comparable survival outcomes to esophagectomy in patients with clinical T1N0M0 esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: real-world data Int J Clin Oncol 2022 27 8 1279 88 10.1007/s10147-022-02185-x 35779118
Sawada K, Kotani D, Yukami H, Mishima S, Fujiwara H, Kadota T, et al. Definitive chemoradiotherapy has comparable survival outcomes to esophagectomy in patients with clinical T1N0M0 esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: real-world data. Int J Clin Oncol. 2022;27(8):1279–88.35779118 10.1007/s10147-022-02185-x
45. Shimonosono M Sasaki K Tsuruda Y Noda M Uchikado Y Arigami T Clinical Outcome after Esophagectomy or definitive Chemoradiotherapy in Elderly patients (≥ 80 years) with esophageal Cancer Anticancer Res 2022 42 8 3953 61 10.21873/anticanres.15890 35896243
Shimonosono M, Sasaki K, Tsuruda Y, Noda M, Uchikado Y, Arigami T, et al. Clinical Outcome after Esophagectomy or definitive Chemoradiotherapy in Elderly patients (≥ 80 years) with esophageal Cancer. Anticancer Res. 2022;42(8):3953–61.35896243 10.21873/anticanres.15890
46. Bostel T Akbaba S Wollschläger D Mayer A Nikolaidou E Murnik M Chemoradiotherapy in geriatric patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the esophagus: multi-center analysis on the value of standard treatment in the elderly Front Oncol 2023 13 1063670 10.3389/fonc.2023.1063670 36937445
Bostel T, Akbaba S, Wollschläger D, Mayer A, Nikolaidou E, Murnik M, et al. Chemoradiotherapy in geriatric patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the esophagus: multi-center analysis on the value of standard treatment in the elderly. Front Oncol. 2023;13:1063670.36937445 10.3389/fonc.2023.1063670
47. Ahmed N Tankel J Asselah J Alcindor T Alfieri J David M Survival and perioperative outcomes of octo- and nonagenarians with resectable esophageal carcinoma Dis Esophagus 2023 36 12 doad043 10.1093/dote/doad043 37448141
Ahmed N, Tankel J, Asselah J, Alcindor T, Alfieri J, David M, et al. Survival and perioperative outcomes of octo- and nonagenarians with resectable esophageal carcinoma. Dis Esophagus. 2023;36(12):doad043.37448141 10.1093/dote/doad043
48. Page MJ McKenzie JE Bossuyt PM Boutron I Hoffmann TC Mulrow CD The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews BMJ 2021 372 n71 10.1136/bmj.n71 33782057
Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;372:n71.33782057 10.1136/bmj.n71
49. Higgins JP Altman DG Gøtzsche PC Jüni P Moher D Oxman AD The Cochrane collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials BMJ 2011 343 d5928 10.1136/bmj.d5928 22008217
Higgins JP, Altman DG, Gøtzsche PC, Jüni P, Moher D, Oxman AD, et al. The Cochrane collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 2011;343:d5928.22008217 10.1136/bmj.d5928
50. Stang A Critical evaluation of the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for the assessment of the quality of nonrandomized studies in meta-analyses Eur J Epidemiol 2010 25 603 5 10.1007/s10654-010-9491-z 20652370
Stang A. Critical evaluation of the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for the assessment of the quality of nonrandomized studies in meta-analyses. Eur J Epidemiol. 2010;25:603–5.20652370 10.1007/s10654-010-9491-z
51. Guyatt G Oxman AD Akl EA Kunz R Vist G Brozek J GRADE guidelines: 1. Introduction-GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables J Clin Epidemiol 2011 64 4 383 94 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.04.026 21195583
Guyatt G, Oxman AD, Akl EA, Kunz R, Vist G, Brozek J, et al. GRADE guidelines: 1. Introduction-GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64(4):383–94.21195583 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.04.026
52. Tierney JF Stewart LA Ghersi D Burdett S Sydes MR Practical methods for incorporating summary time-to-event data into meta-analysis Trials 2007 8 16 10.1186/1745-6215-8-16 17555582
Tierney JF, Stewart LA, Ghersi D, Burdett S, Sydes MR. Practical methods for incorporating summary time-to-event data into meta-analysis. Trials. 2007;8:16.17555582 10.1186/1745-6215-8-16
53. Egger M Davey Smith G Schneider M Minder C Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test BMJ 1997 315 7109 629 34 10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629 9310563
Egger M, Davey Smith G, Schneider M, Minder C. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ. 1997;315(7109):629–34.9310563 10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629
54. Finlayson E Fan Z Birkmeyer JD Outcomes in octogenarians undergoing high-risk cancer operation: a national study J Am Coll Surg 2007 205 6 729 34 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2007.06.307 18035254
Finlayson E, Fan Z, Birkmeyer JD. Outcomes in octogenarians undergoing high-risk cancer operation: a national study. J Am Coll Surg. 2007;205(6):729–34.18035254 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2007.06.307
55. Hurria A Togawa K Mohile SG Owusu C Klepin HD Gross CP Predicting chemotherapy toxicity in older adults with cancer: a prospective multicenter study J Clin Oncol 2011 29 25 3457 65 10.1200/JCO.2011.34.7625 21810685
Hurria A, Togawa K, Mohile SG, Owusu C, Klepin HD, Gross CP, et al. Predicting chemotherapy toxicity in older adults with cancer: a prospective multicenter study. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29(25):3457–65.21810685 10.1200/JCO.2011.34.7625
56. Jing W Zhu H Guo H Zhang Y Shi F Han A Feasibility of Elective nodal irradiation (ENI) and involved Field Irradiation (IFI) in Radiotherapy for the Elderly patients (aged ≥ 70 years) with esophageal squamous cell Cancer: a retrospective analysis from a single Institute PLoS ONE 2015 10 12 e0143007 10.1371/journal.pone.0143007 26636574
Jing W, Zhu H, Guo H, Zhang Y, Shi F, Han A, et al. Feasibility of Elective nodal irradiation (ENI) and involved Field Irradiation (IFI) in Radiotherapy for the Elderly patients (aged ≥ 70 years) with esophageal squamous cell Cancer: a retrospective analysis from a single Institute. PLoS ONE. 2015;10(12):e0143007.26636574 10.1371/journal.pone.0143007
57. Lin SH Zhang N Godby J Wang J Marsh GD Liao Z Radiation modality use and cardiopulmonary mortality risk in elderly patients with esophageal cancer Cancer 2016 122 6 917 28 10.1002/cncr.29857 26716915
Lin SH, Zhang N, Godby J, Wang J, Marsh GD, Liao Z, et al. Radiation modality use and cardiopulmonary mortality risk in elderly patients with esophageal cancer. Cancer. 2016;122(6):917–28.26716915 10.1002/cncr.29857
58. van Hagen P Hulshof MC van Lanschot JJ Steyerberg EW van Berge Henegouwen MI Wijnhoven BP Preoperative chemoradiotherapy for esophageal or junctional cancer N Engl J Med 2012 366 22 2074 84 10.1056/NEJMoa1112088 22646630
van Hagen P, Hulshof MC, van Lanschot JJ, Steyerberg EW, van Berge Henegouwen MI, Wijnhoven BP, et al. Preoperative chemoradiotherapy for esophageal or junctional cancer. N Engl J Med. 2012;366(22):2074–84.22646630 10.1056/NEJMoa1112088
59. Yang H Liu H Chen Y Zhu C Fang W Yu Z 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 27 2796 803 10.1200/JCO.2018.79.1483 30089078
Yang H, Liu H, Chen Y, Zhu C, Fang W, Yu 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(27):2796–803.30089078 10.1200/JCO.2018.79.1483
60. Wang H Li S Liu T Chen J Dang J Neoadjuvant immune checkpoint inhibitor in combination with chemotherapy or chemoradiotherapy in resectable esophageal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis Front Immunol 2022 13 998620 10.3389/fimmu.2022.998620 36177019
Wang H, Li S, Liu T, Chen J, Dang J. Neoadjuvant immune checkpoint inhibitor in combination with chemotherapy or chemoradiotherapy in resectable esophageal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Front Immunol. 2022;13:998620.36177019 10.3389/fimmu.2022.998620
