FLOT Versus CROSS—What Is the Optimal Therapeutic Approach for Locally Advanced Adenocarcinoma of the Esophagus and the Esophagogastric Junction?

Background/Objectives: Neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy and perioperative chemotherapy are both well-established treatment strategies for locally advanced adenocarcinoma of the esophagus (EAC) and the esophagogastric junction (AEGJ). However, recent knowledge controversially discusses whether neoadjuvant radiotherapy or perioperative chemotherapy represents superior therapeutic options to prolong survival or cause less toxicity. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed 76 patients with locally advanced EAC or AEGJ treated at our tertiary cancer center between January 2015 and March 2023. Patients received either perioperative FLOT chemotherapy (n = 36) or neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy following the CROSS protocol (n = 40), followed by surgical resection and standardized follow-up. We compared survival outcomes, toxicity profiles, treatment compliance, and surgical results between the two groups. Results: There were no statistically significant differences between FLOT and CROSS treatments in five-year loco-regional controls (LRC: 61.5% vs. 68.6%; p = 0.81), progression-free survival (PFS: 33.9% vs. 42.8%; p = 0.82), overall survival (OS: 60.2% vs. 63.4%; p = 0.91), or distant controls (DC: 42.1% vs. 56.5%; p = 0.39). High-grade hematologic toxicities did not significantly differ between groups (p > 0.05). Treatment compliance was lower in the FLOT group, with 50% (18/36) not completing all the planned chemotherapy cycles, compared to 17.5% (7/40) in the CROSS group. All the patients in the CROSS group received the full radiotherapy dose. Surgical outcomes and post-surgical tumor status were comparable between the groups. Conclusions: Although perioperative chemotherapy with FLOT has recently become a standard of care for locally advanced EAC and AEGJ, neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy per the CROSS protocol remains a well-tolerated alternative. In appropriately selected patients, both approaches yield comparable oncological outcomes.