There are no studies on treating synchronous head and neck cancer (HNC) and superficial esophageal squamous cell neoplasm (SESCN). We aimed to report the outcomes of endoscopic resection (ER) and no treatment (NT) of SESCN in patients with synchronous HNC and SESCN (SHNSESCN). This retrospective study included 47 patients with SHNSESCN. Treatment for SESCN was ER (n = 30) or NT (n = 17). The ER group had significantly lower Charlson comorbidity index scores and a higher proportion of Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) scores ≤1. The location and stage of the two tumors did not differ significantly between the groups. The 1-year, 3-year, and 5-year OS rates of the ER group were significantly better than those in the NT group. Treatment-related morbidity and mortality were not significantly different between the two groups. In the subgroup analysis of synchronous advanced HNC and SESCN, ER for SESCN also had a higher OS rate. Multivariate analysis showed that ECOG PS score and HNC disease progression were the two independent indicators of OS. In conclusion, treatment of SESCN with ER is the recommended approach for patients with SHNSESCN, but further randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm this.

Introduction: Hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy (HAIC) and tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI) are widely used to treat unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). This study investigated the benefits of combining TKI and HAIC in these patients. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed patients with unresectable HCC treated at Linkou Chang Gung Memorial Hospital between March 2009 and February 2022. The patients were categorized into two groups: HAIC combined with TKI therapy and HAIC alone. Kaplan–Meier analysis, Cox proportional hazards models, and propensity score matching were applied. Results: Among 130 patients, the combination therapy group showed significantly improved overall survival (OS) (20.2 versus 11.8 months, p = 0.000) and progression-free survival (PFS) (8.2 versus 3.6 months, p = 0.011) compared to the HAIC-only group. These advantages persisted after propensity score matching with improved OS (20.2 vs 12.9 months, p = 0.001) and extrahepatic PFS (12.4 vs 5.5 months, p = 0.008). Combination therapy improved PFS in the stage IV portal vein thrombosis (PVT) subgroup. TKI combination therapy, more than nine HAIC cycles, and post-HAIC transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) were independent predictors of improved OS. Conclusion: Combining HAIC with TKI therapy improves survival outcomes compared to HAIC alone in patients with unresectable HCC, especially in cases with extrahepatic spread and PVT. Sequential TACE following HAIC therapy further enhances survival benefits.

Background/Objectives: Icteric hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is characterized by obstructive jaundice, impaired liver function, and limited treatment options. Biliary drainage may relieve jaundice and permit subsequent anticancer therapy, but the clinical benefit of systemic treatment remains uncertain in this setting. Methods: This retrospective, single-center cohort study included 78 patients with icteric HCC who underwent biliary drainage via endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) or percutaneous transhepatic cholangial drainage (PTCD). Thirty patients received systemic treatment during the treatment course surrounding biliary drainage (five initiated treatment before drainage and 25 on or after drainage), whereas 48 did not receive systemic treatment. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were evaluated using Kaplan–Meier analysis and Cox regression. Propensity score matching (PSM), time-dependent Cox regression, and a 42-day landmark analysis were performed as sensitivity analyses. Results: Median OS was longer with systemic treatment than without systemic treatment (14.6 vs. 6.7 months; p = 0.025), as was PFS (7.5 vs. 3.5 months; p = 0.005). After 1:1 PSM, systemic therapy remained associated with longer PFS (7.6 vs. 4.6 months; p = 0.044), whereas the OS difference was not statistically significant. In time-dependent analyses, systemic treatment was not significantly associated with OS (HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.40–1.22; p = 0.207) or PFS (HR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.38–1.13; p = 0.128). Conclusions: Systemic treatment was associated with favorable outcomes in selected patients in the primary analyses, but these associations were attenuated after accounting for treatment timing. The findings are exploratory and do not establish a causal treatment effect.