Esophageal cancer is the sixth most common cancer worldwide. Approximately 50% of patients have locally advanced disease. The CROSS and NEOCRTEC5010 trials have demonstrated that neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy followed by surgery is the standard treatment for patients with resectable disease. However, a pathological complete response is frequently not achieved, and most patients have a poor prognosis. The CheckMate 577 trial demonstrates that nivolumab adjuvant therapy improves disease-free survival in patents without a pathological complete response. However, there are still numerous clinical questions of concern that remain controversial based on the results of the subgroup analysis. In this review, we aim to offer constructive suggestions addressing the clinical concerns raised in the CheckMate 577 trial.

We compared treatment outcomes in patients with stage II nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) treated with intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) or two-dimensional conventional radiotherapy (2D-CRT). Stage II (2010 UICC/AJCC staging system) NPC patients treated with IMRT (n = 178) or 2D-CRT (n = 73) between January 2007 and December 2014 were retrospectively analyzed. Patients were matched using the propensity score-matching method. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). Secondary endpoints were local relapse-free survival (LRFS), regional relapse-free survival (RRFS), distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS), and disease-free survival (DFS). Acute and late toxicity reactions to IMRT and 2D-CRT were also compared. In an unmatched cohort of 251 patients, no significant survival differences were found between those receiving IMRT and those receiving 2D-CRT (5-year OS, 95.67% vs 94.44%, P = 0.0556; LRFS, 97.34% vs 98.59%, P = 0.6656; RRFS, 99.26% vs 100%, P = 0.6785; DMFS, 96.5% vs 98.63%, P = 0.7910; DFS, 92.2% vs 97.24%, P = 0.8719). In the propensity-matched cohort of 146 patients, 5-year OS (97.06% vs 94.44%, P = 0.1325), LRFS (96.75% vs 98.59%, P = 0.8869), RRFS (100% vs 100%, P = 1.0000), DMFS (98.63% vs 98.63%, P = 0.4225), and DFS (95.37% vs 97.24%, P = 0.5634) were similar between patients treated with IMRT or 2D-CRT. However, IMRT correlated with fewer acute and late toxicity reactions. Thus although IMRT provides no survival advantage, it has a lower incidence of toxicity than 2D-CRT in stage II NPC patients.

Purpose: This study aims to assess the impact of liver metastases status on survival outcomes of first-line immunotherapy in extensive stage small cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC) patients. Materials and methods: Comprehensive searches were conducted in the Cochrane Library databases, Embase, PubMed, and abstracts from WCLC, ESMO, and ASCO from inception to December 2022. Randomized controlled trials reporting progression-free survival (PFS) and/or overall survival (OS) of first-line immunotherapy in ES-SCLC patients were included. Results: Six trials involving 3501 patients were analyzed, comprising 1350 patients with liver metastases and 2151 without. The quality of the included trials was consistently high. Pooled results revealed that immunotherapy plus chemotherapy did not significantly improve PFS (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.82, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.68-1.00, P = 0.05) and OS (HR = 0.89, 95% CI: 0.79-1.00, P = 0.05) in ES-SCLC patients with liver metastases compared to chemotherapy alone. However, immunotherapy plus chemotherapy improved PFS (HR = 0.66, 95% CI: 0.57-0.77, P < 0.01) and OS (HR = 0.74, 95% CI: 0.67-0.82, P < 0.01) in ES-SCLC patients without liver metastases compared to chemotherapy alone. Conclusions: First-line immunotherapy plus chemotherapy significantly improved PFS and OS in ES-SCLC patients without liver metastases compared to chemotherapy alone. However, patients with liver metastases did not experience comparable benefits.

Purpose: This study aims to identify the prognosis of the extracapsular spread (ECS) of cervical lymph node metastases in nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC). Materials and Methods: Patients with NPC were extracted from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database from 2004 to 2016. Pathologically confirmed World Health Patients with World Health Organization types I, II, and III NPC with complete ECS data of cervical lymph node metastases were investigated. The included patients were divided into non-ECS and ECS groups. The 10-year overall survival (OS) and cancer-specific survival (CSS) were compared between the two groups using the Kaplan-Meier method and propensity score matching analyses. Results: A total of 625 patients were included. The ECS group included 99 (15.84%) patients. The non-ECS group included 526 (84.16%) patients. The 10-year OS (50.2 vs. 35.8%; P < 0.001) and CSS (64.8 vs. 45.7%; P < 0.001) were better in the non-ECS group than in the ECS group in the unmatched cohort. Propensity score matching analyses revealed favorable 10-year OS (52.7 vs. 35.8%; P = 0.008) and CSS (61.2 vs. 45.7%; P = 0.008) in the non-ECS group with respect to the ECS group. Age, sex, race, AJCC stage, and ECS (hazard ratio (HR) = 1.71, 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.14–2.57, P = 0.010) were independent prognostic factors for OS. Age, sex, AJCC stage, and ECS (HR = 1.91; 95% CI, 1.21–3.01; P = 0.005) were independent prognostic factors for CSS. Conclusion: This study indicated that ECS is a prognostic risk factor for NPC. Further studies should be performed to verify the results due to the limitations of the SEER database.

Purpose: This study aims to evaluate the efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) combined with concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) versus CCRT alone in patients with locally advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma.Materials and methods: This retrospective cohort study included patients diagnosed with locally advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma who received either CCRT alone or CCRT combined with ICIs from April 2019 to February 2023. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS), and the secondary endpoint was overall survival (OS).Results: A total of 101 patients were enrolled, with 58 undergoing CCRT alone and 43 receiving CCRT+ICI. The CCRT+ICI group demonstrated a higher complete response rate compared to the CCRT alone group (11.6% vs. 1.7%, P = 0.037). However, no significant difference was observed in 1-year PFS (58.9% vs. 55.2%; hazard ratio [HR] = 1.26, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.70-2.26; P = 0.445) or 1-year OS (70.8% vs. 75.9%; HR = 1.21, 95% CI: 0.58-2.53; P = 0.613) between CCRT+ICI and CCRT alone groups. The CCRT alone group experienced a higher incidence of leukopenia of any grade (93.1% vs. 76.7%, P = 0.039) but a lower incidence of pneumonitis of any grade (36.2% vs. 65.1%, P = 0.008).Conclusion: CCRT+ICI may not lead to improved survival outcomes compared to CCRT alone in patients with locally advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. These findings indicate the need for further investigation into this treatment approach.