Sie können Operatoren mit Ihrer Suchanfrage kombinieren, um diese noch präziser einzugrenzen. Klicken Sie auf den Suchoperator, um eine Erklärung seiner Funktionsweise anzuzeigen.
Findet Dokumente, in denen beide Begriffe in beliebiger Reihenfolge innerhalb von maximal n Worten zueinander stehen. Empfehlung: Wählen Sie zwischen 15 und 30 als maximale Wortanzahl (z.B. NEAR(hybrid, antrieb, 20)).
Findet Dokumente, in denen der Begriff in Wortvarianten vorkommt, wobei diese VOR, HINTER oder VOR und HINTER dem Suchbegriff anschließen können (z.B., leichtbau*, *leichtbau, *leichtbau*).
Recent advances in the development of new therapeutic agents and the execution of numerous randomized controlled trials have changed the landscape of systemic therapy approaches in patients with esophageal squamous cell cancer (ESCC). Particularly the inclusion of immunotherapy permits clinicians to improve patient management in multiple settings. This review gives an overview of standard-of-care treatment and sheds light on new therapeutic options, recently approved treatments, and ongoing trials.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
AC
Adenocarcinoma
CHT
Chemotherapy
CPS
Combined positive score
CROSS
Chemoradiotherapy for Oesophageal Cancer Followed by Surgery Study
CRT
Chemoradiotherapy
DFS
Disease-free survival
EFS
Event-free survival
EGFR
Epidermal growth factor receptor
EMA
European Medicines Agency
ESCC
Esophageal squamous cell carcinoma
FDA
United States Food and Drug Administration
HR
Hazard ratio
ICI
Immune checkpoint inhibitor
IO
Immunotherapy
ITIM
Immunoreceptor tyrosine-based inhibitory motif
MMRD
Mismatch repair deficiency
MSI‑H
High microsatellite instability
OS
Overall survival
pCR
Pathologic complete response
PD-(L)1
Programmed death-(ligand) 1
PFS
Progression-free survival
TAP
Tumor area positivity
TMB‑H
High tumor mutational burden
TPS
Tumor proportion score
5‑FU
5‑fluorouracil
Introduction
Esophageal cancer is the eleventh most common cancer worldwide, with over 510,000 newly diagnosed cases and over 440,000 recorded deaths in 2022 [1]. The highest regional incidence is observed in Eastern Asia and Eastern Africa [1]. ESCC represents the predominant histologic subtype globally. However, increased esophageal adenocarcinoma (AC) diagnoses have been recently detected, particularly in more developed countries. Smoking and alcohol consumption are well-known major risk factors for ESCC in Western countries. In contrast, those associated with ESCC cases in lower-income countries have yet to be uncovered [2].
As ESCC represents a major clinical challenge for physicians and the prognosis remains poor, it is indispensable to offer suitable treatment strategies. This article focuses on current treatment possibilities in the European subpopulation, while still aiming to depict other geographically dependent treatment perspectives. Figure 1 illustrates the treatment approaches discussed in this review.
Fig. 1
Treatment algorithms and important recent approval trials for localized (a) and advanced/metastatic (b) ESCC. ATT ATTRACTION, CHT chemotherapy, CM Checkmate, CPS combined positive score, CRT chemoradiotherapy, ESCC esophageal squamous cell cancer, ICI immune checkpoint inhibitor, ipi ipilimumab, KN Keynote, nivo nivolumab, pCR pathologic complete response, RA RATIONALE, TPS tumor proportion score; a In spite of having these approved therapy strategies in guidelines, innovative therapeutic options and thus inclusion in clinical trials should always be a priority in every treatment line. b 40–55 Gy in resectable setting, up to 65 Gy in definitive setting. Chemotherapy with platin/taxane or platin/fluoropyrimidine available. c Fluoropyrimidine comprises either 5‑fluorouracil (5-FU) or capecitabine. d In ESCC only approved by United States Food and Drug Administration, not by European Medicines Agency
In contrast to the FDA label, the current European guidelines suggest immunohistochemical staining of programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) to determine the eligibility for the administration of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) [3]. PD-L1 scoring can be evaluated using several assessments including the tumor proportion score (TPS) or the combined positive score (CPS). TPS investigates viable tumor cells with either partial or complete membrane staining at any intensity, while CPS also comprises lymphocytes and macrophages. Tumor area positivity (TAP) score, which is determined by visually estimating positive tumor cells and tumor-associated immune cells, is already frequently used in clinical trials for ESCC and might become the baseline for future approvals, as it is suggested to be less time-consuming and more visually estimated than CPS and TPS [4].
The evaluation of other molecular markers associated with response to immunotherapy (IO; i.e., high microsatellite instability [MSI-H], mismatch repair deficiency [MMRD] or high tumor mutational burden [TMB-H]) is only mentioned in American National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines and should be performed for all newly esophageal cancers, whereas there is no mention in European guidelines [3, 5]. For these specific subgroups, the anti-PD‑1 antibody pembrolizumab has already been approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Medicines Agency (EMA) in advanced stages lacking other suitable treatment options. Although these molecular markers are rarely detected and ESCC is not specifically included in the EMA’s approval, pembrolizumab may still be considered for use in advanced ESCC cases under a “tissue-agnostic” approach [6‐8]. Another key point is the various antibodies used for immunohistochemical staining of PD‑1 in clinical trials, which are not specifically highlighted by approval authorities and may indicate that antibodies such as 22C3 (Keynote590) or 28‑8 (Checkmate577) are exchangeable [9, 10].
Management of localized ESCC
Early disease
Early disease is defined according to the TNM-classification as T1N0M0 and should be treated with endoscopic en bloc resection, i.e., either endoscopic mucosal resection or endoscopic submucosal dissection [11]. In patients with increased risk factors for lymph node metastases (i.e., depth of invasion, large tumor size, lymphovascular invasion, low differentiation grade, ulceration), further resective surgery with lymphadenectomy should be discussed [3].
Locally advanced disease
The definition of locally advanced ESCC applies when staged either T2–T4 or N1–3 with M0. To date, therapeutic strategies in localized settings remain independent of molecular markers. Based on the results from the Chemoradiotherapy for Oesophageal Cancer Followed by Surgery Study (CROSS), chemoradiotherapy (CRT) followed by surgical resection is the standard-of-care treatment recommendation for ESCC. Patients with locally advanced ESCC (n = 84) benefited from the addition of weekly administered carboplatin + paclitaxel + radiation with a dose of 41.4 Gy in 23 fractions, compared to surgery alone, which has been emphasized by the 10-year overall survival (OS) data (46% vs. 23%, P = 0.007) [12].
Anzeige
Despite following a multimodal treatment approach based on CROSS, the risk of recurrence remains high. Recently, the Checkmate 577 trial demonstrated an increase in disease-free survival (DFS) in patients with ESCC (n = 230), who received adjuvant nivolumab after R0 resection and residual pathological disease, compared to the addition of placebo (29.7 vs. 11.0 months; hazard ratio [HR] 0.61; P < 0.001) [10]. OS data are not yet available. Post hoc analyses concluded that patients with CPS ≥ 5 had the largest gain, although a positive effect was also visible in patients with CPS < 5. Thus, both EMA and FDA approved adjuvant nivolumab for patients without pCR (pathologic complete response) after CRT and R0 resection.
Some patients are not willing to undergo or are not eligible for surgery, due to increased perioperative morbidity, particularly in cervically localized ESCC. Thus, definitive CRT is the standard of care in this patient cohort with up to 65 Gy and either a CROSS regimen (carboplatin + paclitaxel) or a fluorouracil + platin-based regimen according to PRODIGE5/ACCORD17 trial [3, 13]. No superiority in OS between these chemotherapy (CHT) backbones was observed [14]. Whether patients after definitive CRT might also profit from additional checkpoint inhibition is currently investigated in several clinical trials, which are discussed below.
Advanced/metastatic disease
ESCC is considered advanced when there is no possibility of having curative-intended/definitive CRT or when metastases are present. Treatment strategies in this setting are shown in Fig. 1b.
First-line therapy
Platinum–fluoropyrimidine doublet with or without ICI constitutes the first-line treatment for advanced ESCC. The KEYNOTE-590 trial demonstrated a significant survival benefit of the addition of pembrolizumab to cisplatin + fluoropyrimidine in treatment-naive advanced patients with both histologic subtypes [9]. Mainly patients with ESCC (n = 548) and a CPS ≥ 10 (n = 286) had the greatest OS gain (HR 0.57, P < 0.0001). The 5‑year outcomes showed that pembrolizumab + chemotherapy led to a significantly higher OS rate in all patients with ESCC regardless of CPS, compared to chemotherapy alone (11.8% vs. 3.4%) [15].
Another trial that led to the approval of immunotherapy in a first-line setting was CheckMate 648. Patients were randomized into three arms: nivolumab + CHT (cisplatin + 5-FU), nivolumab + ipilimumab or CHT (cisplatin + 5-FU) alone [16]. Both treatment arms comprising ICIs had significantly longer OS, when TPS was ≥ 1%. However, a lower radiological response rate and higher risks of early progression and consequently mortality were observed in patients with dual ICI administration, resulting in stronger recommendations for CHT with nivolumab [3, 16]. High tumor burden and the presence of liver metastases were two factors associated with delayed onset of response to dual immune checkpoint inhibition in this trial [17].
Nevertheless, it is indispensable to state that ICI-based first-line therapeutic regimens do not necessarily have a survival benefit in advanced ESCC patients with a TPS < 1% and CPS < 10. This finding was suggested by a meta-analysis, examining various clinical trials, among them CheckMate-648 and KEYNOTE-590 [18]. Moreover, information on the long-term management of these patients is missing, as it is still unclear, which therapy to provide in maintenance or progressive settings.
Second-line therapy
Based on the results of the predominantly Asian multicenter phase III ATTRACTION-3 trial, nivolumab monotherapy is a second-line option in patients with advanced ESCC previously treated with fluoropyrimidine- or platinum-based CHT, as it significantly improved median OS compared to taxane-based CHT [19]. FDA and EMA approved nivolumab in this setting independent of PD-L1 status. Similar outcomes were reported with the anti-PD‑1 antibody tislelizumab in the global phase-III RATIONALE-302 trial, leading to approval both by FDA and EMA [20]. Pembrolizumab may be an option for patients who did not receive ICIs in first-line treatment and a CPS ≥ 10, according to the findings of KEYNOTE-181 [21]. Second-line pembrolizumab was only approved by the FDA and not EMA [6].
It is necessary to state that patients in these three trials did not receive any IO in first-line treatment, which does not allow to draw any conclusions whether IO reinduction is feasible. 48 patients, who were treated in first-line setting with tislelizumab in the RATIONALE-306 trial, had posttreatment immunotherapy, though no response data on this subgroup is available [22].
Anzeige
CHT (taxane-based or irinotecan) is an option for fit patients who were previously treated with CHT (platinum + fluoropyrimidine) and/or ICI (nivolumab or pembrolizumab) [3].
Outlook
Novel drugs inhibiting the PD‑1 pathway such as camrelizumab (ESCORT-1st [23]), toripalimab (JUPITER-06 [24]), or sintilimab (ORIENT-15 [25]) have already proved their efficacy in Asian populations with advanced ESCC. Tislelizumab (RATIONALE-306 [26]) provided superior survival both in Asian and Caucasian patients, which might lead to approval in Europe as first-line therapy. Anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) antibodies, i.e., nimotuzumab, were also reported to increase pCR combined with CRT in unresectable ESCC [27]. Tiragolumab (SKYSCRAPER-08), a novel T‑cell immunoreceptor with immunoglobulin and ITIM (immunoreceptor tyrosine-based inhibitory motif) domain (TIGIT) inhibitor, led to significantly elevated PFS and OS, when combined with atezolizumab and CHT, compared to CHT alone [28]. In pretreated ESCC expressing EGFR and/or mesenchymal epithelial transition (MET), the bispecific antibody amivantamab showed antitumor activity, another promising novel treatment strategy [29].
Regarding curative treatment, camrelizumab, another novel PD‑1 inhibitor, showed promising results in the phase III ESCORT NEO trial (n = 391) in neoadjuvant administration with CHT in locally advanced ESCC, leading to much higher pCR rates compared to CHT alone [30].
Treatment strategies after definitive CRT are still not defined, engendering the phase III trials KEYNOTE-975 and SKYSCRAPER-07. In the first trial, pembrolizumab is administered for 1 year, whereas in the other trial, atezolizumab ± tiragolumab is given to patients who have not progressed following definitive CRT ([31, 32]; Table 1).
Table 1
First-line phase III studies of immune checkpoint inhibitors in advanced unresectable ESCC
NA not available, OS overall survival, PFS progression-free survival, ITT intention to treat
Anzeige
Conclusion
In recent years, the landscape of systemic therapeutic options for localized and metastatic esophageal squamous cell cancer (ESCC) has been revolutionized by novel drugs and numerous randomized controlled trials. Nevertheless, prognosis in advanced stages remains poor, which necessitates further research. Particularly some patient subgroups with specific biomarkers might profit from targeted therapies that are currently under investigation. As treatment options are still limited, therapeutic decisions should always be made after discussion in an interdisciplinary tumor board and in accordance with the patients’ wishes.
Take-home message
With limited treatment options, innovative targets and drugs are emerging to enhance care for esophageal squamous cell cancer. This brief review highlights state of the art therapy and new strategies.
M. Korpan declares that he has no competing interests. H.C. Puhr received travel support from Eli Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer and Roche and received lecture honoraria from Eli Lilly. G.W. Prager: advisories and/or speaker fees: Servier, Bayer, Roche, Amgen, Merck, MSD, BMS, Sanofi, Lilly, Astra Zeneca, Astellas, Pierre-Fabre, Incyte, Arcus, CECOG. A. Ilhan-Mutlu: participation in advisory boards organized by MSD, Servier, Daiichi Sankyo, BMS and Astellas, lecture honoraria from Eli Lilly, Servier, BMS, MSD, Astellas, Astra Zeneca and Daiichi Sankyo, consulting for Astellas, MSD, Amgen, Astra Zeneca and BeiGene, travel support from BMS, Roche, Eli Lilly, Daiichi Sankyo and BeiGene.
Anzeige
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Bray F, Laversanne M, Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL, Soerjomataram I, et al. Global cancer statistics 2022: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians. 2024;74:229–63.
Obermannová R, Alsina M, Cervantes A, Leong T, Lordick F, Nilsson M, et al. Oesophageal cancer: ESMO clinical practice guideline for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol. 2022;33:992–1004.CrossRefPubMed
4.
Shu Y, Wang J, Chen Z, Kim S‑B, Lin C‑Y, Kato K, et al. Concordance among three programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) scoring methods and their association with clinical outcomes of tislelizumab (TIS) monotherapy in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC). JCO. 2024;42:390–390.CrossRef
5.
Ajani JA, Barthel JS, Bentrem DJ, D’Amico TA, Das P, Denlinger CS, et al. Esophageal and esophagogastric junction cancers. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2011;9:830–87.CrossRefPubMed
6.
Puhr HC, Prager GW, Ilhan-Mutlu A. How we treat esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. ESMO Open. 2023;8:100789.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Sun J‑M, Shen L, Shah MA, Enzinger P, Adenis A, Doi T, et al. Pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone for first-line treatment of advanced oesophageal cancer (KEYNOTE-590): a randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study. Lancet. 2021;398:759–71.CrossRefPubMed
10.
Ronan KJ, Ajani Jaffer A, Kuzdzal J, Thomas Z, Van Cutsem E, Piessen G, et al. Adjuvant nivolumab in resected esophageal or gastroesophageal junction cancer. N Engl J Med. 2021;384:1191–203.CrossRef
11.
di Pietro M, Canto MI, Fitzgerald RC. Endoscopic management of early adenocarcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma of the esophagus: screening, diagnosis, and therapy. Gastroenterology. 2018;154:421–36.CrossRefPubMed
12.
Eyck BM, van Lanschot JJB, Hulshof MCCM, van der Wilk BJ, Shapiro J, van Hagen P, et al. Ten-year outcome of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy plus surgery for esophageal cancer: the randomized controlled CROSS trial. J Clin Oncol. 2021;39:1995–2004.CrossRefPubMed
13.
Conroy T, Galais M‑P, Raoul J‑L, Bouché O, Gourgou-Bourgade S, Douillard J‑Y, et al. Definitive chemoradiotherapy with FOLFOX versus fluorouracil and cisplatin in patients with oesophageal cancer (PRODIGE5/ACCORD17): final results of a randomised, phase 2/3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2014;15:305–14.CrossRefPubMed
14.
de Vos-Geelen J, Hoebers FJP, Geurts SME, Hoeben A, de Greef BTA, Voncken FEM, et al. A national study to assess outcomes of definitive chemoradiation regimens in proximal esophageal cancer. Acta Oncol. 2020;59:895–903.CrossRefPubMed
15.
Shah MA, Sun J‑M, Shen L, Kato K, Enzinger PC, Adenis A, et al. First-line pembrolizumab (pembro) plus chemotherapy (chemo) for advanced esophageal cancer: 5‑year outcomes from the phase 3 KEYNOTE-590 study. JCO. 2024;42:250–250.CrossRef
16.
Doki Y, Ajani JA, Kato K, Xu J, Wyrwicz L, Motoyama S, et al. Nivolumab combination therapy in advanced esophageal squamous-cell carcinoma. N Engl J Med. 2022;386:449–62.CrossRefPubMed
17.
Chau I, Ajani J, Doki Y, Xu J, Wyrwicz L, Motoyama S, et al. O‑3 Nivolumab (NIVO) plus chemotherapy (chemo) or ipilimumab (IPI) vs chemo as first-line treatment for advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC): Expanded efficacy and safety analyses from CheckMate 648. Ann Oncol. 2022;33:S379–S80.CrossRef
18.
Yap DWT, Leone AG, Wong NZH, Zhao JJ, Tey JCS, Sundar R, et al. Effectiveness of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors in Patients With Advanced Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma: A Meta-analysis Including Low PD-L1 Subgroups. JAMA Oncology. 2023;9:215–24.
19.
Kato K, Cho BC, Takahashi M, Okada M, Lin C‑Y, Chin K, et al. Nivolumab versus chemotherapy in patients with advanced oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma refractory or intolerant to previous chemotherapy (ATTRACTION-3): a multicentre, randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2019;20:1506–17.CrossRefPubMed
20.
Shen L, Kato K, Kim S‑B, Ajani JA, Zhao K, He Z, et al. Tislelizumab versus chemotherapy as second-line treatment for advanced or metastatic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (RATIONALE-302): a randomized phase III study. J Clin Oncol. 2022;40:3065–76.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
21.
Kojima T, Shah MA, Muro K, Francois E, Adenis A, Hsu C‑H, et al. Randomized phase III KEYNOTE-181 study of Pembrolizumab versus chemotherapy in advanced esophageal cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2020;38:4138–48.CrossRefPubMed
Luo H, Lu J, Bai Y, Mao T, Wang J, Fan Q, et al. Effect of camrelizumab vs placebo added to chemotherapy on survival and progression-free survival in patients with advanced or metastatic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: the ESCORT-1st randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2021;326:916–25.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
24.
Wang Z‑X, Cui C, Yao J, Zhang Y, Li M, Feng J, et al. Toripalimab plus chemotherapy in treatment-naïve, advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (JUPITER-06): A multi-center phase 3 trial. Cancer Cells. 2022;40:277–288.e3.CrossRef
25.
Lu Z, Wang J, Shu Y, Liu L, Kong L, Yang L, et al. Sintilimab versus placebo in combination with chemotherapy as first line treatment for locally advanced or metastatic oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ORIENT-15): multicentre, randomised, double blind, phase 3 trial. BMJ. 2022;377:e68714.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
26.
Xu J, Kato K, Raymond E, Hubner RA, Shu Y, Pan Y, et al. Tislelizumab plus chemotherapy versus placebo plus chemotherapy as first-line treatment for advanced or metastatic oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma (RATIONALE-306): a global, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study. Lancet Oncol. 2023;24:483–95.CrossRefPubMed
27.
Meng X, Zheng A, Wang J, Wu X, Li G, Zhu J, et al. Nimotuzumab plus concurrent chemo-radiotherapy in unresectable locally advanced oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC): interim analysis from a Phase 3 clinical trial. Br J Cancer. 2023;129:1787–92.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
28.
Hsu C‑H, Lu Z, Gao S, Wang J‑Y, Sun J‑M, Liu T, et al. SKYSCRAPER-08: a phase III, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of first-line (1L) tiragolumab (tira) + atezolizumab (atezo) and chemotherapy (CT) in patients (pts) with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC). JCO. 2024;42:245–245.CrossRef
29.
Kotani D, Yamaguchi K, Kato K, Hara H, Miura A, Satoh T, et al. A phase 2, open-label study of amivantamab in patients with previously treated advanced or metastatic gastric or esophageal cancer. JCO. 2024;42:363–363.CrossRef
Shah MA, Bennouna J, Doi T, Shen L, Kato K, Adenis A, et al. KEYNOTE-975 study design: a Phase III study of definitive chemoradiotherapy plus pembrolizumab in patients with esophageal carcinoma. Future Oncol.17:1143–53.
32.
Goodman KA, Xu R, Chau I, Chen MH, Cho BC, Shah MA, et al. SKYSCRAPER-07: a phase III, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of atezolizumab with or without tiragolumab in patients with unresectable ESCC who have not progressed following definitive concurrent chemoradiotherapy. JCO. 2022;40:TPS374–TPS374.CrossRef