临床T1bN0M0期胸段食管癌根治术与根治性放化疗的疗效分析

Efficacy analysis of curative esophagectomy versus definitive chemoradiotherapy in clinical T1bN0M0 thoracic esophageal cancer

  • 摘要:
    探讨临床T1bN0M0期胸段食管癌根治术与根治性放化疗(dCRT)的疗效。
    采用倾向评分匹配及回顾性队列研究方法。收集2014年1月至2020年12月河南省人民医院收治的163例临床T1bN0M0期胸段食管癌患者的临床病理资料;男125例,女38例;年龄为(58.9±7.0)岁。163例患者中,124例行根治性经胸食管切除术,设为根治术组;39例行dCRT,设为dCRT组。观察指标:(1)倾向评分匹配情况及匹配后两组患者临床病理特征比较。(2)根治术组并发症和dCRT组治疗情况。(3)生存分析。(4)患者预后的影响因素分析。正态分布的计量资料组间比较采用Welch t检验,偏态分布的计量资料组间比较采用Mann‑Whitney U检验。计数资料组间比较采用χ²检验或Fisher确切概率法。等级资料组间比较采用Mann‑Whitney U检验。采用Cox比例风险模型进行单因素和多因素分析。采用Kaplan‑Meier法计算生存率并绘制生存曲线,Log‑rank检验进行生存分析。倾向评分匹配按2∶1最近邻匹配法匹配,卡钳值为0.05。
    (1)倾向评分匹配情况及匹配后两组患者临床病理特征比较。163例患者中,117例患者匹配成功,根治术组78例,dCRT组39例。倾向评分匹配后,消除肿瘤分化程度因素混杂偏倚,具有可比性。(2)根治术组并发症和dCRT组治疗情况。根治术组78例患者中,22例发生术后30 d内并发症。无术后30 d内死亡患者。dCRT组39例患者中,25例行单纯同步放化疗,8例行诱导化疗后同步放化疗,3例行序贯放化疗,3例仅行放疗。33例行同步放化疗患者中,29例采用XP方案(卡培他滨+顺铂),4例采用FP方案(5⁃氟尿嘧啶+顺铂)。疗效评估显示:37例患者达完全缓解,2例患者存在病灶残留。22例出现治疗相关不良反应。(3)生存分析。倾向评分匹配后,根治术组患者随访时间为58(13~125)个月,dCRT组为56(10~129)个月。根治术组和dCRT组患者术后5年总生存率分别为95.7%和97.1%,两组比较,差异无统计学意义(χ²=0.001,P>0.05)。根治术组和dCRT组患者术后5年无病生存率分别为88.2%和94.2%,两组比较,差异无统计学意义(χ²=0.652,P>0.05)。(4)患者预后的影响因素分析。年龄和病理学TNM分期是临床T1bN0M0期胸段食管癌患者总生存时间的独立影响因素(风险比=1.312、2.945,95%可信区间为1.042~1.711、2.204~5.517,P<0.05)。年龄和病理学TNM分期是临床T1bN0M0期胸段食管癌患者无病生存时间的独立影响因素(风险比=1.215、3.301,95%可信区间为1.012~1.699、2.012~6.321,P<0.05)。
    临床T1bN0M0期胸段食管癌患者行根治术与dCRT的总生存和无病生存情况比较,差异均无统计学意义。治疗方式并非预后的独立影响因素。

     

    Abstract:
    Objective To evaluate the efficacy of curative esophagectomy versus definitive chemoradiotherapy (dCRT) in patients with clinical T1bN0M0 thoracic esophageal cancer.
    Methods The propensity score matching (PSM) and retrospective cohort study was conducted. The clinico-pathological data of 163 patients with clinical T1bN0M0 thoracic esophageal cancer who were admitted to Henan Provincial People′s Hospital from January 2014 to December 2020 were collected. There were 125 males and 38 females, aged (58.9±7.0)years. Of 163 patients, 124 cases undergoing curative transthoracic esophagectomy were allocated into the radical resection group, 39 cases undergoing dCRT were allocated into the dCRT group. Observation indicators:(1) PSM and compari-son of clinicopathological characteristics of patients between the two groups after matching; (2) complications in the radical resection group and treatment status in the dCRT group; (3) survival analysis; (4) analysis of factors influencing patients′ prognosis. Comparison of measurement data with normal distribution between groups was conducted using the Welch t test. Comparison of measurement data with skewed distribution between groups was conducted using the Mann-Whitney U test. Comparison of count data between groups was conducted using the chi‑square test or Fisher exact probability. Comparison of ordinal data was conducted using the Mann‑Whitney U test. The Cox proportional hazard model was used for univariate and multivariate analyses. The Kaplan‑Meier method was used to calculate survival rate and plot survival curve, and Log‑rank test was used for survival analysis. PSM was performed using the 2∶1 nearest neighbor matching method. The caliper value was set as 0.05.
    Results (1) PSM and comparison of clinicopathological charac-teristics of patients between the two groups after matching. Of the 163 patients, 117 cases were successfully matched, with 78 cases in the radical resection group and 39 cases in the dCRT group. After PSM, the elimination of tumor differentiation degree confounding bias ensured comparability. (2) Complications in the radical resection group and treatment status in the dCRT group.Among the 78 patients in the curative esophagectomy group, 22 cases developed complications within 30 days after surgery. There was no death within 30 days after surgery. Among the 39 patients in the dCRT group, 25 cases received concurrent chemoradiotherapy alone, 8 cases received induction chemo-therapy followed by concurrent chemoradiotherapy, 3 cases received sequential chemoradiotherapy, and 3 cases received radiotherapy alone. Among the 33 patients who received concurrent chemo-radiotherapy, 29 cases were treated with the XP regimen, and 4 cases with the FP regimen. Efficacy evaluation showed that 37 patients achieved complete remission, and 2 patients had residual lesions. Twenty‑two patients developed treatment‑related adverse reactions. (3) Survival analysis. After PSM, the follow-up duration was 58(range, 13-125)months in the radical resection group and 56(range, 10-129)months in the dCRT group. The postoperative 5-year overall survival rates were 95.7% and 97.1% in the radical resection group and dCRT group, respectively, showing no significant difference between the two groups (χ²=0.001, P>0.05). The postoperative 5-year disease-free progression survival rates were 88.2% and 94.2% in the radical resection group and dCRT group, respectively, showing no significant difference between the two groups (χ²=0.652, P>0.05). (4) Analysis of factors influencing patients prognosis. Age and pathological TNM stage were indepen-dent influencing factors for overall survival time in patients with clinical T1bN0M0 thoracic esophageal cancer (hazard ratio=1.312, 2.945, 95% confidence interval as 1.042-1.711, 2.204-5.517, P<0.05). Age and pathological TNM stage were independent influencing factors for disease‑free survival time in patients with clinical T1bN0M0 thoracic esophageal cancer (hazard ratio=1.215, 3.301, 95% confidence interval as 1.012-1.699, 2.012-6.321, P<0.05).
    Conclusions There is no significant difference in overall survival and disease‑free survival between patients with clinical T1bN0M0 thoracic esophageal cancer undergoing curative esophagectomy and dCRT. The treatment modality is not an independent prognostic factor.

     

/

返回文章
返回