Definitive chemoradiotherapy with simultaneous integrated boost of radiotherapy dose for T4 esophageal cancer—will it stand for a standard treatment?
Editorial Commentary

Definitive chemoradiotherapy with simultaneous integrated boost of radiotherapy dose for T4 esophageal cancer—will it stand for a standard treatment?

Satoru Matsuda, Shuhei Mayanagi, Tomoyuki Irino, Hirofumi Kawakubo, Yuko Kitagawa

Department of Surgery, Keio University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan

Correspondence to: Yuko Kitagawa, MD, PhD. Department of Surgery, Keio University School of Medicine, 35 Shinanomachi, Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo 160-8582, Japan. Email:

Provenance: This is an invited article commissioned by the Section Editor Xiaozheng Kang (Department of Thoracic Surgery, Beijing Cancer Hospital, Peking University, Beijing, China).

Comment on: Chen D, Menon H, Verma V, et al. Results of a Phase 1/2 Trial of Chemoradiotherapy With Simultaneous Integrated Boost of Radiotherapy Dose in Unresectable Locally Advanced Esophageal Cancer. JAMA Oncol 2019. [Epub ahead of print].

Submitted Nov 19, 2019. Accepted for publication Dec 01, 2019.

doi: 10.21037/jtd.2019.12.59

Esophageal cancer has been recognized as a dismal disease because it metastasizes even in the early stage and invades vital organs, such as the trachea and aorta. Despite advancements in multidisciplinary treatment, consisting of chemotherapy (CT), radiotherapy (RT), and surgery (1), no standard treatment for T4 esophageal cancer has been established. Although definitive chemoradiotherapy (dCRT) has been considered one of the treatment options, a high recurrence rate was observed even after the patients achieved clinical complete response (cCR). Based on previous findings that most local failure occurred within the radiated field (2), Welsh et al. planned to evaluate whether intensive local treatment using a simultaneous integrated boost of RT (SIB-RT) could improve local control and survival.

In the current phase 2 study, Chen et al. remarkably showed the safety and efficacy of SIB-RT in the primary tumor and lymph node (3). A total boost RT dose of 63 Gy and a standard dose of 50.4 Gy were administered to the subclinical risk area and the clinical targeted volume, respectively. Safety and efficacy evaluated with local control and overall survival (OS) were the endpoints of this trial. As a result, there was no grade 4 or higher toxicity, and the occurrence of grade 3 adverse events was manageable, suggesting the safety of the current protocol. In terms of efficacy, median OS was 21.5 months, and the study group showed significant improvement in local control and prognosis compared with the historical cohorts that received standard-dose dCRT. Although the comparison between the current study cohort and previously treated patients who received standard-dose dCRT needs to be cautiously evaluated because this was not included in the prospective trial, the median OS of 21.5 months was consistent with those in recent trials (4,5) and superior to the OS in the previous study using the classical planning procedure of RT (6).

The Intergroup 0123 study proved that an increase in the local radiation dose did not contribute to survival (6), which was corroborated by the follow-up study (7). However, as the authors mentioned, a number of retrospective trials have suggested the additional efficacy of intensive local treatment (8,9). Therefore, we agree with the motivation of the current study that the longstanding question of whether an increase in local intensity could improve prognosis needs to be revisited at this point. Consequently, this study successfully showed that the dose escalation of RT using an advanced technique potentially improved survival while maintaining the safety. In contrast, the description in the report that the efficacy of treatments for adenocarcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) was the same needs to be discussed. Although the authors reported that SCC might be more resistant to RT than adenocarcinoma, it is inconsistent with the result of the CROSS trial, which revealed that the histological response was remarkably better in SCC (10,11). A reasonable explanation could be that an increased dose of RT is capable of eradicating esophageal cancer regardless of histology. The difference between SIB-RT and standard RT was more evident in adenocarcinoma than SCC, indicating that dose escalation is strikingly required in adenocarcinoma, whereas lower dose could be sufficient in SCC.

Regarding RT technology, 15% of the participants received proton-beam RT. Although several retrospective cohort studies exist (12), there is no concrete evidence that the safety and efficacy of proton beams were the same as those of the photon beams. Generally, proton therapy encourages concentrating the radiation to the targeted lesion, which reduces the adverse effects to the surrounding tissues (13,14). Because the total radiation energy does not differ from that in photon beam, the efficacy is supposed to be the same. However, esophageal cancer could metastasize even in the early stage, and clinically undetectable tumor cells could exist around the primary tumor and lymph node, indicating that radiation to the surrounding tissue would have contributed to local control. To evaluate the efficacy of proton therapy, 15% of the entire cohort is insufficient in this study. Therefore, although SIB-RT can be considered a treatment option, the indication of proton therapy needs be carefully evaluated.

Clinically unresectable esophageal cancer was selected as an indication in the current trial. As summarized in the review article by Makino et al., there are two types of treatment strategies for unresectable esophageal cancer (15). Definitive CRT, including SIB-RT, has been a mainstay, and patients are expected to be cured when they achieve cCR. However, almost half of patients with cCR developed disease recurrence in the advanced stage. Indeed, 33% participants experienced local failure in this study, and 24% eventually underwent salvage esophagectomy. Ultimately, all patients who underwent surgical resection showed distant metastasis, indicating that systemic tumor control is also required to treat unresectable esophageal cancer. Another treatment option for T4 stage disease is induction CT, followed by conversion surgery. Combined with an intensive chemotherapeutic agent, triplet CT, such as 5-fluorouracil, oxaliplatin, and docetaxel (FLOT) and docetaxel, cisplatin, and 5-fluorouracil (DCF), was shown to be tolerable and improve prognosis (16,17). Because intense CT is capable of eradicating systemic micrometastasis and conversion surgery could achieve better local control, induction CT followed by conversion surgery is potentially superior to dCRT. In fact, Yokota et al. reported a high rate of conversion surgery after DCF in T4 esophageal cancer, showing 1- and 3-year OS of 100% and 90%, respectively (18). While the inclusion criterion in this trial was T4 esophageal cancer excluding M1 disease, this study aimed to investigate the efficacy of induction CT followed by conversion surgery. Based on the result, the Japan Clinical Oncology Group is currently conducting a multi-institutional phase 3 trial of trimodality therapy with induction DCF versus dCRT for locally advanced unresectable SCC of the thoracic esophagus (JCOG1510: TRIANgLE) (19), which will help establish the standard treatment for T4 esophageal cancer. Because induction CT using FLOT was administered in stage IV or T3/4N+ nonmetastatic cancer in the current trial, this might partially account for the improvement in the local and systemic control of the disease.

The combination of triplet CT and RT can be considered. Higuchi et al. conducted a phase 2 trial using definitive dCRT with DCF (DCF-R) for advanced esophageal cancer (KDOG 0501‐P2). It showed a 3-year OS of 44%, which was promising, but high incidence of grade 3 or higher leukopenia (71%) and neutropenia (57%), including febrile neutropenia (38%), was observed. Miyazaki et al. conducted another phase 2 trial using DCF-R, which also showed high incidence of adverse effects (20). Consequently, despite the high efficacy, triplet CT with concurrent RT should be avoided at this point.

Again, Chen et al. should be commended because they successfully suggested that dCRT with SIB-RT can be a valuable strategy for T4 esophageal cancer treatment, regardless of histology. Taking into account the comparison between dCRT and conversion surgery following induction CT, further study is required to establish an ideal multidisciplinary treatment and eradicate local and systemic tumor cells.




Conflicts of Interest: The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Ethical Statement: The authors are accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.


  1. Matsuda S, Takeuchi H, Kawakubo H, et al. Current Advancement in Multidisciplinary Treatment for Resectable cStage II/III Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma in Japan. Ann Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2016;22:275-83. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  2. Welsh J, Settle SH, Amini A, et al. Failure patterns in patients with esophageal cancer treated with definitive chemoradiation. Cancer 2012;118:2632-40. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  3. Chen D, Menon H, Verma V, et al. Results of a Phase 1/2 Trial of Chemoradiotherapy With Simultaneous Integrated Boost of Radiotherapy Dose in Unresectable Locally Advanced Esophageal Cancer. JAMA Oncol 2019. [Epub ahead of print]. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  4. Li M, Zhao F, Zhang X, et al. Involved-field irradiation in definitive chemoradiotherapy for T4 squamous cell carcinoma of the esophagus. Curr Oncol 2016;23:e131-7. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  5. Satake H, Tahara M, Mochizuki S, et al. A prospective, multicenter phase I/II study of induction chemotherapy with docetaxel, cisplatin and fluorouracil (DCF) followed by chemoradiotherapy in patients with unresectable locally advanced esophageal carcinoma. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 2016;78:91-9. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  6. Minsky BD, Pajak TF, Ginsberg RJ, et al. INT 0123 (Radiation Therapy Oncology Group 94-05) phase III trial of combined-modality therapy for esophageal cancer: high-dose versus standard-dose radiation therapy. J Clin Oncol 2002;20:1167-74. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  7. Brower JV, Chen S, Bassetti MF, et al. Radiation Dose Escalation in Esophageal Cancer Revisited: A Contemporary Analysis of the National Cancer Data Base, 2004 to 2012. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2016;96:985-93. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  8. He L, Allen PK, Potter A, et al. Re-evaluating the optimal radiation dose for definitive chemoradiotherapy for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. J Thorac Oncol 2014;9:1398-405. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  9. Chen CY, Li CC, Chien CR. Does higher radiation dose lead to better outcome for non-operated localized esophageal squamous cell carcinoma patients who received concurrent chemoradiotherapy? A population based propensity-score matched analysis. Radiother Oncol 2016;120:136-9. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  10. van Hagen P, Hulshof MC, van Lanschot JJ, et al. Preoperative chemoradiotherapy for esophageal or junctional cancer. N Engl J Med 2012;366:2074-84. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  11. Shapiro J, van Lanschot JJB, Hulshof M, et al. Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy plus surgery versus surgery alone for oesophageal or junctional cancer (CROSS): long-term results of a randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol 2015;16:1090-8. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  12. Xi M, Xu C, Liao Z, et al. Comparative Outcomes After Definitive Chemoradiotherapy Using Proton Beam Therapy Versus Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy for Esophageal Cancer: A Retrospective, Single-Institutional Analysis. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2017;99:667-76. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  13. Hirano Y, Onozawa M, Hojo H, et al. Dosimetric comparison between proton beam therapy and photon radiation therapy for locally advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. Radiat Oncol 2018;13:23. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  14. Welsh J, Gomez D, Palmer MB, et al. Intensity-modulated proton therapy further reduces normal tissue exposure during definitive therapy for locally advanced distal esophageal tumors: a dosimetric study. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2011;81:1336-42. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  15. Makino T, Yamasaki M, Tanaka K, et al. Treatment and clinical outcome of clinical T4 esophageal cancer: A systematic review. Ann Gastroenterol Surg 2018;3:169-80. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  16. Al-Batran SE, Homann N, Pauligk C, et al. Perioperative chemotherapy with fluorouracil plus leucovorin, oxaliplatin, and docetaxel versus fluorouracil or capecitabine plus cisplatin and epirubicin for locally advanced, resectable gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction adenocarcinoma (FLOT4): a randomised, phase 2/3 trial. Lancet 2019;393:1948-57. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  17. Hara H, Tahara M, Daiko H, et al. Phase II feasibility study of preoperative chemotherapy with docetaxel, cisplatin, and fluorouracil for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. Cancer Sci 2013;104:1455-60. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  18. Yokota T, Kato K, Hamamoto Y, et al. Phase II study of chemoselection with docetaxel plus cisplatin and 5-fluorouracil induction chemotherapy and subsequent conversion surgery for locally advanced unresectable oesophageal cancer. Br J Cancer 2016;115:1328-34. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  19. Terada M, Hara H, Daiko H, et al. Phase III study of tri-modality combination therapy with induction docetaxel plus cisplatin and 5-fluorouracil versus definitive chemoradiotherapy for locally advanced unresectable squamous-cell carcinoma of the thoracic esophagus (JCOG1510: TRIANgLE). Jpn J Clin Oncol 2019. [Epub ahead of print]. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  20. Miyazaki T, Sohda M, Tanaka N, et al. Phase I/II study of docetaxel, cisplatin, and 5-fluorouracil combination chemoradiotherapy in patients with advanced esophageal cancer. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 2015;75:449-55. [Crossref] [PubMed]
Cite this article as: Matsuda S, Mayanagi S, Irino T, Kawakubo H, Kitagawa Y. Definitive chemoradiotherapy with simultaneous integrated boost of radiotherapy dose for T4 esophageal cancer—will it stand for a standard treatment? J Thorac Dis 2019;11(12):5682-5684. doi: 10.21037/jtd.2019.12.59