Treatment Patterns and Outcomes in Patients with Esophageal Cancer: An Analysis of a Multidisciplinary Tumor Board Database.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Multidisciplinary management strategies are standard in esophageal cancer. Based on a multidisciplinary tumor board (MTB) database in a high-volume center, we aimed to evaluate real-world treatment patterns and patient outcomes in patients with esophageal cancer. In addition, we determined the impact of MTB discussions on patient prognosis. METHODS: Patients diagnosed with esophageal cancer between 2010 and 2019 were retrospectively reviewed. The pattern of treatment modalities and overall survival (OS) of patients with limited, locally advanced, and advanced/metastatic disease were reported. RESULTS: Data from 1132 patients, including 247 patients with limited esophageal cancer, 606 patients with locally advanced esophageal cancer, and 279 patients with advanced/metastatic esophageal cancer were included. Upfront surgery was the most common (56.3%) treatment modality for patients with limited esophageal cancer, while treatment for locally advanced esophageal cancer included upfront surgery (19.1%), neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (44.9%), and definitive chemoradiotherapy (36.0%); however, 27.9% of patients undergoing neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy did not receive planned esophagectomy. Definitive chemoradiotherapy was mainly used for patients with locally advanced and advanced/metastatic disease, but had an incompletion rate of 22.0% and 33.7%, respectively. Regarding survival, the 5-year OS rates were 56.4%, 26.3%, and 5.1% in patients with limited, locally advanced, and advanced/metastatic disease, respectively. Additionally, patients whose clinical management was discussed in the MTB had a significantly better 5-year OS rate than the other patients (27.3% vs. 20.5%, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: We report the real-world data of treatment patterns and patient outcomes in patients with esophageal cancer with respect to multidisciplinary management, and demonstrate the positive impact of MTB discussions on patient prognosis.