What question did this study set out to answer?

May 21, 2026Open Access

Comparison of perioperative chemotherapy and neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (CRT) in locally advanced resectable distal esophageal/esophagogastric junction (EGJ) adenocarcinomas

Key Points

The aim is to compare real-world outcomes of perioperative chemotherapy and neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy in treating locally advanced esophageal adenocarcinomas.
Retrospective cohort study involving 119 patients treated from 2016-2025.
Patients received either perioperative chemotherapy (n=68) or neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (n=51) before surgery.
Survival outcomes analyzed with Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazards regression methods.
Neoadjuvant CRT achieved higher rates of pathological complete response (p=0.034) and downstaging (p=0.005).
No significant difference in overall survival (OS) (p=0.944) or recurrence-free survival (RFS) (p=0.449) was found between treatments.
Subgroup analysis indicated neoadjuvant CRT benefited RFS in distal stage II (p=0.014), while perioperative ChT showed OS advantage in EGJ stage III (p=0.020).

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To compare the real-world outcomes of perioperative chemotherapy (ChT) and neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (CRT) in patients with locally advanced resectable distal esophageal and esophagogastric junction (EGJ) adenocarcinomas, with respect to pathological response, overall survival (OS), and recurrence-free survival (RFS). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included 119 patients treated between 2016 and 2025 at a tertiary oncology center. Patients received either perioperative ChT (n = 68) or neoadjuvant CRT (n = 51) followed by curative-intent surgery. Baseline clinicopathological characteristics were comparable between groups. Survival outcomes were analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared with the log-rank test. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression models were constructed to identify independent prognostic factors for OS. RESULTS: A total of 119 patients were included, with comparable baseline characteristics between groups. Neoadjuvant CRT achieved higher pathological complete response and downstaging rates (p = 0.034 and p = 0.005), but no significant difference in overall survival (OS) (p = 0.944) or recurrence-free survival (RFS) (p = 0.449) was observed. In subgroup analyses, neoadjuvant CRT showed a trend toward improved OS in EGJ stage II (p = 0.078) and a significant RFS benefit in distal stage II (p = 0.014), whereas perioperative ChT demonstrated a significant OS advantage in EGJ stage III (p = 0.020). Treatment modality was not an independent predictor of OS, while nodal involvement was the strongest adverse prognostic factor. CONCLUSION: Neoadjuvant CRT improved pathological response but did not provide a survival advantage over perioperative chemotherapy in the overall population. Subgroup analyses suggested stage- and location-dependent differences, although these findings are hypothesis-generating. Both strategies showed comparable survival outcomes, supporting individualized treatment selection. Larger prospective studies are needed for validation.

Bookmark

View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Çelik et al. (Mon,) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a0ea074be05d6e3efb5f2e1 https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-026-16110-2

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

Bookmark

View Full Paper